|
Post by dlinzy on Apr 24, 2016 7:44:56 GMT -6
Pre-Flood Fall 2014 Exact same area.... This was after 1st Flood... July 2015 Current Day 2016.. - Pic to follow... Denny
|
|
|
Post by jonbo on Apr 24, 2016 19:36:41 GMT -6
Make me wanna holla....
|
|
|
Post by jcw355 on Apr 25, 2016 13:03:02 GMT -6
Gutted, big changes for sure. I like spillway still but am disappointed with the changes from cold hole and down river. Flooding happens unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jun 16, 2017 21:00:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jun 16, 2017 21:03:55 GMT -6
|
|
Smallfry
Riffle Club
Trophy Sunfish Hunter
Posts: 434
|
Post by Smallfry on Jun 17, 2017 12:53:16 GMT -6
Haha, "mascara warning" was no joke. Ya know I was informed that resurrecting lost creek wouldn't be that difficult. I think I might start spending days off in Beavers Bend with a shovel, a few buckets and some determination.
|
|
|
Post by hankinsfly on Jun 17, 2017 13:07:17 GMT -6
I keep saying I'm going to rake out the moss of my big bass pond.... ain't got around to it yet
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jun 17, 2017 17:45:48 GMT -6
might have to join you with a spare shovel and a garden rake.
|
|
|
Post by golferjeff on Jun 17, 2017 18:37:11 GMT -6
Lost creek is now about 5 feet above the new riverbed.... gonna take a lot of shoveling and bucket carrying.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jun 18, 2017 15:55:36 GMT -6
Jeff, We would need to get a few Boy Scout troops and form a bucket brigade. LOL
|
|
|
Post by darrelln09 on Jun 19, 2017 9:17:40 GMT -6
Great pictures! As a fly newbie, I was never at the LMFR before the flood. I can hardly believe my eyes! I totally agree that the Lost Creek could be resurrected. It seems to me that backhoe access would not be much of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by okieman71 on Jun 19, 2017 9:29:32 GMT -6
Would take some doing for sure. However, there is plenty of leftover material in the area from the floods to shrink the Cold Hole Lake and even more would come from the digging out of a new channel/diversion. The need for more water is obvious as well as anything that would help with water temps. Both of those steps would help. Always can say what if we have another flood that just washes it all away again? First one should have never happened to begin with. It requires forethought and preventative measures. If we don't do things based on catastrophic events that may or may not happen, well we wouldn't do anything. My fear going forward is if steps are not taken to deal with the water temps., that the empowered ones may just turn it into a seasonal trout fishery like the Blue river and use the temps as an excuse. Fixing the cold hole area is definitely doable. Wouldn't even have to haul in any material.
|
|
|
Post by darrelln09 on Jun 19, 2017 9:47:23 GMT -6
I'm curious to know how the "first one should have never happened". What were the circumstances that led up to the event? By the looks of the Broken Bow lake level history, that must have happened in May/June of 2015 where the water level came very close to the top of the flood pool. The COE probably got pretty alarmed by that.
I hear what you're saying about the water temperatures but I don't see how that could be easily changed. The way the gates are built, they allow (the warmer) water at the surface to flow over the top. It's hard to see how that could be changed to draw out deeper, cooler water.
|
|
|
Post by okieman71 on Jun 19, 2017 10:50:13 GMT -6
1. They watched that lake go up over a period of weeks with much more rain in the forecast. The could have started letting out water earlier from Spillway say 3-4000 CFS and could have generated around the clock from the hydro dam if necessary vs. waiting until the water reached top of Spillway and then releasing 30-40000 CFS from spillway. Supposedly there was maintenance going on to the hydro dam which begs the question why would you schedule maintenance(painting from what I heard) during the rainy season. Letting water out was inevitable. Letting 40,000 bfs out was preventable. SC could have handled 9000 CFS without too much damage. 2. I didn't say it could easily be changed. I said that if the water didn't slow down so much in the new cold hole lake which was not there prior to the flood, it wouldn't warm as much as it does and that would help with temps. That water can't be coming from the surface of the lake or it would be 62 degrees. The surface temp of BB Lake is above 70 degrees right now. Maybe I am not understanding what your saying but I believe the water is already coming from below the surface a ways. Not sure if that is from Spillway or Hydro Dam. Either way, when you have a lake that is between 100-200 ft. deep near the Dams, it is possible to get colder water. Easy, No. Doable, YES. Guess my point is to have a quality year round trout fishery, The most important thing is the water temps. Thats why the San Juan is so great. 40-42 degrees year round. If they could achieve 50-60 year round on the LMF it could be incredible.
|
|
|
Post by darrelln09 on Jun 19, 2017 11:37:42 GMT -6
A flow of 40000 CFS is unbelievable and I can see why you wrote that it was preventable. What a shame! Those "before" pictures of the creek are incredible.
You make a good point about the water temp in Spillway Creek - it's lower than the lake temp. I've only been up there one time and I do remember a small gate very low on the spillway structure where water was shooting out. It must have been 40 or 50 feet below the top so it is possible to take on colder water. The main thing missing is the will to do it on a larger scale.
|
|
|
Post by jonbo on Jun 19, 2017 11:44:15 GMT -6
darrelln09: To expand slightly on what okieman71 said, sometime in the past there seems to have been discussion about somehow extending whatever equipment draws the water from the lake at the Spillway so that it draws from deeper in the lake. This would presumably bring colder water into Spillway creek. It seems that after discussing it the project was then shelved. The same goes for something about cleaning out some valves, or something, at the Rereg Dam. If this were ever done, presumably the water would flow faster through Zone II, thus extending the area where the trout are happy with the temps. It was discussed at some point, then dropped. "We" were told by the "powers that be" that nothing was going to be done. I don't know any more about these matters as my info has only come 3rd hand, from reading these boards, and I'm a relative newbie ('13, I think?) at Beaver's Bend. It's all about the distribution of scarce resources and who has the say so. If I were an Oklahoma resident I'd be tempted to put pressure on my representatives, but I'm not, so I figure I don't have much say so at all.
|
|
|
Post by darrelln09 on Jun 19, 2017 12:45:36 GMT -6
A deeper draw at the spillway would definitely make for a colder water temp in the creek. I think we all see the advantage of that, unfortunately it's not a priority for the COE/management.
However, I'm not sure I follow the "opening up" of the Rereg Dam ... although I must admit I've never been down that far to see it. My thinking is that the water would flow faster AT FIRST and then do nothing more than LOWER the water level in Zone II (which I love fishing in, btw). The only way I can think of to speed up the flow through the whole of Zone II, without lowering the water level, would be to (a) have a higher aggregate CFS released through the spillway, the dam, and the powerhouse or (b) narrow the river channel. Those are just my warped thoughts anyway ...
|
|
|
Post by okieman71 on Jun 19, 2017 16:42:17 GMT -6
THIS IS FROM THE LMFRF SITE; Maybe this will clarify the REREG Cleanout effort that didn't occur
We came up with a plan over some time that was eventually approved for federal matching funds by the ODWC Wildlife Commission for the budget year 2011/2012. It was subsequently quashed with out any plausible reason as to why.
After getting the results of the Economic Survey of 2012 and having excellent data to support the importance of the river for the county and State, I sent a letter to the commissioners asking for clarification on why this project was not happening.
Suffice it to say that as of this time, the ODWC will not be looking to the re-reg project as a prudent use of funds.
This does not mean that the project will not be picked up some time in the future. I will continue to pursue this as long as I am around the LMFR.
Below is a copy of the letter for you to read.
Sincerely, Patrick Waters President, LMFRF
ODWC_Zelbst_Letter
|
|
|
Post by okieman71 on Jun 19, 2017 16:43:31 GMT -6
If you cannot open the link to the letter, go to the lmfrf site and look under reregulation cleanout
|
|
|
Post by darrelln09 on Jun 19, 2017 17:36:36 GMT -6
I found the letter on the LMFRF website. Interesting reading ... not sure what to think at this point.
|
|