Dubya and the Corp to Ruin Montana Fishing....

[JoseCuervo]

It is not enough for Dubya to ruin fishing in Idaho, Oregon, California and Washington, now he is going to ruin fishing in Montana.... When will the Madness end???

Fish in danger as reservoir drains
Posted Apr 29, 2004 - 05:08 PM


Pity the pike and perch of Peck. It looks like they won’t even get tumbleweeds for habitat this year.


Unrelenting drought has left Fort Peck Reservoir with just the last remaining bits of shallow-water spawning habitat and cover for young fish. It’s down to tumbleweeds that have blown into the lake.


But with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers boosting outflows through Fort Peck Dam to 11,000 cubic feet per second this week, water levels will continue to drop, and even the tumbleweeds are expected to go high, dry and dusty in the weeks ahead.


According to the Corps, the higher flows are sure to last through May and could continue into the summer. The Corps said it is just following the plan it laid out for spring.


At Fort Peck, tumbleweeds were something of a last ray of hope for the lake’s northern pike and perch, according to Mike Ruggles, fisheries biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. These two fish species, in particular, need underwater structures on which to deposit their eggs.


On windy days, tumbleweeds by the hundreds are blown into the lake.


“It was nature’s way of bringing vegetation to the water, since the water seems to be staying away from plants,” Ruggles said. “The tumbleweeds have been very thick this year.


“The tumbleweeds were stacked up in the water near shore and in slack water areas and appeared to be nice perch spawning habitat. No doubt pike also spawned over some of the tumbleweeds blown in earlier,” he added.


“Unfortunately, water from the dam is going to be released at a much higher rate than the incoming water and the expected foot of water rise isn’t going to happen, which means some dried-up perch eggs and likely some dried-up pike eggs,” Ruggles said.


That’s bad news for just about all the fish species in Fort Peck.


“No way a lot of forage fish (bait fish) are going to successfully spawn this year,” said Bill Wiedenheft, FWP fisheries manager in Glasgow. “No cover habitat for forage fish or game fish in the shallows is going to ultimately have an effect on a lot of species - the forage fish, plus northern pike, walleyes, sauger.”


The lack of flooded vegetation, Wiedenheft said, “affects everything because your overall productivity in the lake goes down. It reduces the amount of nutrients in the lake. It affects your phytoplankton, plankton, everything. The vegetation breaks down and provides nutrients for the lake. Without the vegetation, it doesn’t have that. It’s tough on all the fish.”


From his Omaha District office, Corps spokesman Paul Johnston said boosting the outflows from the 6,000 cfs range in recent weeks to the 11,000 range Monday was just following the plan for the Missouri River mainstem reservoirs.


“Our plan early this year was to provide lake levels that were at least level (not diminished) in the big three reservoirs to help out their respective fish spawns,” he said. “The goal was to maintain Oahe (in South Dakota) level in April, which we’ve been able to do. We would maintain Sakakawea (in North Dakota) in May and then Fort Peck in June for the spawn of the forage fish there.


“We looked at the 78 percent of normal mountain snowpack and essentially no snow on the plains, and this is what we’ve had to do,” Johnston said.


The lake level on Fort Peck can be expected to drop another 1.5 feet to 2 feet by the end of May, he said. The lake level Monday was 2,205.3 feet of elevation.


“We won’t be going over 11,000 cfs (outflows through the dam) in May,” he said. “One of our generators has been out of service for two years. We’re limited to that much of a release. We’re sure not going to go above that and put water through the flood tunnels.”


Johnston said more numbers would be available as forecasts are projected later this week. He added that all of the numbers are predicated on shortening the navigation season on the lower Missouri River by at least 36 days this year.


“We’re just getting hammered by dry conditions from the Canadian border all the way down to the northern part of Kansas,” he said. “We’re doing what we can do.”


Just as Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., blistered Corps Division Commander Brig. Gen. William T. Grisoli in a letter sent last Friday, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., wrote an angry letter Monday.


“General Grisoli, I am tired of trying to work with the Corps on this issue, and to convince the Corps that Montana deserves to be treated fairly in the Corps’ management of the Missouri River,” Baucus wrote.


“I plan to introduce legislation as soon as possible in an effort to remedy this injustice. I will do everything in my power to finally get the Corps’ attention focused on Montana’s needs,” he added.


Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., is also working on legislation for the Corps’ management of Fort Peck and other Missouri River reservoirs.

 

[Bambistew]

Fort peck was put in to control flooding and to control water levels for barge traffic down stream...Maybe if MT had PAID for the project then maybe they could have some say in it. There is way more benifit down stream for that water than there is for the few fisherman that use the resivior... I think its too bad that they didn't establish a min. level, but again its a reservior doing what it was made to do! Fishing and recreation is just a bonus... What about the low water levels that will warm and kill fish in the river? The lake was way down anyway, even if they retained all the water it still woudn't be enough to create flooded habitat for the bait fish to spawn.

So blame the drought on Bush too!!!

BTW, you hypocrit, this is one of those evil dams you preach so much about... How does this piss you off?

 

[Nemont]

Bambistew,
Actually the corps. is in violation of the Master Manual and should be in the drought conservation mode set forth by the master manual.

The current operating manual that is used to govern the flow of the Missouri has not been being updated since 1988!! Who do you think is holding up the process? Not Montana, Not North or South Dakota but the Show me State of Missouri. Why because they want the water to float the barge traffic below Gavins Point. Never mind that the barge traffic is minimal and all the products could be easily shipped by truck. It is just easier to drain Fort Peck, Sakakawea and Oahe.

The issue is not just a few fisherman. People are drawn from many places to fish Fort Peck. It is part of our economic life blood.

Also we should have some input on the water in the Missouri River. The current draw down of Fort Peck is the increase spawning habitat in Sakakawea and raise that lake level. Why is their fishing more important that ours?

It makes my blood boil to see that lake 41 below full pool. I don't blame Bush because it happened under Clinton also. We just have not had good runoff but why drain the lake?

Last fall the same thing happened they bumped the flow from 4,500 cfs to 12,000cfs nearly all winter.

Why?

Nemont

[ 05-03-2004, 13:25: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[Bambistew]

Thanks Newmont...I didn't know that, but was the resivior designed mainly for fishing and recreation? Is thier only reason for draining the lake to keep barge traffic moving, or is it to help fill resiviors down stream? Arn't the down stream lakes affected worse by the drought?

The economy of the small towns will defiantly be affected, but that’s the problem you get when you economy is based on tourism, and recreation... it’s a chance you have to take to make it.

Missouri is a huge cornerstone for the election, the politions have to keep them happy or they stand to loose a lot of votes...

I agree that it sucks but what can ya do? Conrad Burns and Max Baucus have about as much pull in Washington as I do... Its another sad day for Montana!

 

[Nemont]

Bambistew,
First of all it is Nemont not Ne w mont.

Is thier only reason for draining the lake to keep barge traffic moving, or is it to help fill resiviors down stream? Arn't the down stream lakes affected worse by the drought?

No, recreation was not part of the orginal purpose of Fort Peck. But economic development and benefits for Montana were part of the orginal mission of the building of Fort Peck.

The economic value of upstream recreation exceeds the value of all barge traffic and commerce. I will send you that study when I get it scanned in.

Actually all three lakes: Peck, Sakakawea and Oahe are at or near their all time lows. Sacrificing one fishery for another seems capricious at best.

I agree politically we are toast. Missouri is an important election state and we will end up the losers, again.

Nemont

[ 05-05-2004, 14:21: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[JoseCuervo]

BawmwbwiSwtweww,

I thought you actually knew something about Montana, and now you are getting schooled by NeMont??? I know you will find this hard to believe, but Dubya is the one playing politics with the Fish in Peck. As he is the one in control of the Corp. Yep, Missouri will get the benefits, but it is Dubya who is delivering the water.

I think I read somewhere the count of barges dependent, and it was like 1 per week, or some ridiculously low number that Montana was forced to provide water for.

And your original assertation of "Flood Control" doesn't "hold any water", as if you drain Peck during a drought, what flood were you preventing?????

 

[Nemont]

FORT PECK, SAK, OAHE AT RECORD LOW LEVELS

Fort Peck

Full pool -- 2246.0
4-30-04 -- 2204.9
Currently 3.7 feet below previous all-time record low
Previous record low set in April, 1991 -- 2208.7

Sakakawea
Full pool -- 1850.0
4-30-04 -- 1814.8

Currently 0.2 feet above previous all-time record low
Previous record low set in May,1991 -- 1815.0


Oahe

Full pool -- 1617.0
4-30-04 -- 1581.6
Currently 0.9 feet above previous all-time record low
Previous record set in November, 1989 -- 1580.7


Click Me: Hell Creek DamCam

Click on Dam Cam and look at all the brown stuff. That used to covered with water.


Fort Peck
lake level

Date -- Elevation

7-1-02 -- 2220.0
9-1-02 -- 2218.6
11-1-02 -- 2217.2
12-1-02 -- 2216.7
1-1-03 -- 2214.6
2-1-03 -- 2212.6
3-1-03 -- 2211.1
4-1-03 -- 2212.8
5-1-03 -- 2212.8
6-1-03 -- 2213.0
7-1-03 -- 2213.6
8-1-03 -- 2212.3
9-1-03 -- 2210.8
10-1-03 -- 2209.6
11-1-03 -- 2209.3
12-1-03 -- 2208.3
1-1-04 -- 2206.8
2-1-04 -- 2205.3
3-1-04 -- 2204.0
4-1-04 -- 2205.5
4-23-04 -- 2205.4
Outflows are boosted
4-30-04 -- 2204.9
5-1-04 -- 2204.9
5-5-04 -- 2204.6

Previous
all-time record low
April, 1991 -- 2208.7

Nemont

[ 05-05-2004, 14:20: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[ELKCHSR]

Thanks for all the info guy's, this has been very informative.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I know you're not this stupid....

"And your original assertation of "Flood Control" doesn't "hold any water", as if you drain Peck during a drought, what flood were you preventing?????"


You know that floods do not occur in a drought, don't you?

If you are "anti-dam," as you have professed in other posts, why would you be against draining a lake formed behind a dam you don't want?

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL!!! The travesty of it all...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
I know you're not this stupid....

"And your original assertation of "Flood Control" doesn't "hold any water", as if you drain Peck during a drought, what flood were you preventing?????"


You know that floods do not occur in a drought, don't you?

If you are "anti-dam," as you have professed in other posts, why would you be against draining a lake formed behind a dam you don't want?

Cali,

I am missing something from your post.... Let me see if I can help you understand...

Bambistew said Peck was for Flood Control and so that is why they were releasing the water.

And I questioned why you would be managing Flood Control by draining an empty reservoir during a drought.

What did you think I meant????


And when have I ever claimed to be "Anti-Dam"? Please don't assign my opinions to me. There are tons of dams that serve purposes, and I don't give a flip about them. I am Pro-Salmon, and if a dam causes problems to Wild Salmon in Idaho, then I think it needs to be removed. That hardly makes me "Anti-Dam", it just makes me a Fisherman. Too bad you don't care about Fishing enough to take a similar position.