corps dates for dam access posted

[Shellkat]

The dates for public meeting are posted on corps website

[Shellkat]

Hey moderator feel free to take down my post and put one up with info and links

[IronWorker]

I read an article concerning this issue in the Crittenden County Press. The article stated that in January there will be a public forum In Paducah Ky where the general public can voice their opinions. My personal opinion is the Army Corp has already made up their collective minds and their public forum is little more than a smoke screen devised to convince the public into thinking the Army Corp cares about the general publics opinion. They have made plans to have fishing access restricted and if they cared about the publics opinions they would have scheduled a press release stating there would be a public forum before any such restricted access decisions were put on the table.
When it is all said and done they will most likely take it upon themselves to go ahead with their pre-arranged plans regardless of what is said in an public forums discussion.

[HURRICANEBOB]

The meetings will be held as follows:

•Thursday, January 10, 2013: 6-8 p.m. CST
Badgett Playhouse Theater
1838 JH O'Bryan Ave.
Grand Rivers, Ky.
•Tuesday, January 15, 2013: 6-8 p.m. CST
McGavock High School Auditorium
3150 McGavock Pike
Nashville, Tenn.
•Thursday, January 17, 2013: 6-8 p.m. CST
Upperman High School Auditorium
6950 Nashville Highway
Baxter, Tenn.
•Thursday, January 24, 2013: 6-8 p.m. EST
Somerset Center for Rural Development
2292 U.S. Highway 27, Suite 300
Somerset, Ky.


Nashville District > About > Organization > Operations > Restricted Areas Around Dams

[IronWorker]

Sounds to me like this is a classic case of the US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS pi$$ing down the general publics back and then attempting to convince them it raining.

The US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS has already decided to declare these places off limits to the the general public well before they issued dates for their so called "public forums meetings". The USACE is blowing smoke when they act like they are requesting public input concerning their desicions due to the fact their minds are already made up and to heck with what anyone else thinks about the issue.
Why did they decide to put these restrictions in place at Barkley Dam but decide no to do so at Kentucky Dam?
It doesnt take a genius to know there is more fishing activity at Kentucky Dam in comparison to Barkley Dam and that if they had announced such a decision for Kentucky Dam that the public backlash would have been severe enough to give them a very noticeable public relations blackeye.
The USACE were betting on the odds that the general public would fall into the lines of thinking it would be okay to give in to the regulations they would be puting into place at Barkley Dam because there were no regulations announced for Kentucky Dam. They were expecting the general public to "drink the coolaide" and to willingly give up the tailwater areas of Barkly Dam while considering that Kentucky Dam tailwaters area would remain forever wide open and accesible. And from the looks of things that is exactly what is happening and people are "drinking the coolaide" taking it for granted the USACE will not be enforcing these types of restrictions at Kentucky Dam.
My thoughts are the USACE are putting these restrictions into effect at Barkley Dam in order to test the waters in an effort to see just how much opposition they will encounter in hopes they can just as easily put the same restrictions into effect at Kentucky Dam on some later to be announced date. By that time people will be conditioned into thinking along the lines of "Well they did it at Barkley Dam so that is proof enough we cant keep them from doing it at Kentucky Dam and they couldnt be stopped back then so what makes us think we can stop them now".

[Dave Stewart]

Here is a copy of the KDFW position paper on the Corps proposed limiting of access to boaters above and below the Cumberland River dams located here in Kentucky:

Position Statement Regarding Boat Restrictions at Corps Dams
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

The US Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District, is preparing to release plans to restrict boating access above and below their dams to maximize safety associated with hazardous waters. These restrictions are based on a 1996 policy established in ER 1130-2-520, Project Operations-Navigation and Dredging Operations and Maintenance Policies. Restricted areas are to be based on hydraulic criteria and site-specific operational considerations. The Nashville District has four impoundments in Kentucky including Martins Fork, Laurel River, Barkley, and Cumberland lakes. The above dam restricted areas will not significantly impact most boating activity; however, the below dam restriction will significantly impact boaters (anglers) below Lake Cumberland and Barkley Lake. The other two lakes do not have adequate streams that support boat access. Most other impoundments in the Nashville District are in Tennessee.

Areas below dams (tailwaters) provide a concentration of fish due to the physical barrier, flow and oxygen conditions, and the concentration of forage fish for major predators and these conditions attract boat anglers. Anglers have been accustomed to fishing these areas since 1953 at Lake Cumberland and 1966 at Barkley Lake. Data from Barkley Lake in 2000 reveal the importance of these tailwaters when there were 562 fishing trips per acre immediately below the dam compared to 4 fishing trips per acre above the dam. Over 60% of these fishing trips were made by boat anglers. Similarly the fish harvest in tailwaters was 2,655 fish per acre compared to 9 fish per acre in the lake. The economic value for the Barkley Lake tailwater fishery is over $3M. Site specific data is not available on Lake Cumberland tailwaters but anecdotally this is highest fishing pressure area and supports the highest catch rate and harvest for this entire 75 miles of trout stream. The proposed unofficial restricted zone below both Barkley Lake and Lake Cumberland are unnecessarily restrictive. They are based on bank full conditions with all major gates open-a true flood stage at either location. These are extreme conditions when it is definitely unsafe to be in this section and probably the entire river below the dam. Very calm and safe water will have restricted access for significant portions of the year including the major recreational season. We agree with the Corps there are significant safety considerations below any dam due to the periodic turbulent conditions and reverse currents that are created. Presently there are warning signs and a requirement to wear a Personal Flotation Device (PFD) in this zone. The Department promulgated a state regulation in 2011 to provide our Conservation Officers the authority to enforce the Corps PFD requirement. The Department is opposed to the proposed restrictive zones for the following reasons:

Both areas support major recreational fisheries that will be negatively impacted.

The hydraulic line standard only applies at flood stage and is not applicable during other major times of the year.

The Lake Cumberland hydraulic standard is definitely excessive since gates have only been opened during rare events since the dam was constructed except during the current dam repair era.

The policy is being implemented without public input.

The policy is 17 years old and has not been implemented.

The policy contains language that allows some flexibility, i.e ..boundaries shall ordinarily be established based on high flow conditions…

The proposed buoy line to delineate the zone will be cost excessive and has not been budgeted.

Other alternatives are available including warning lights to designate a restricted zone when gates have been opened. Both our Department and Tennessee Wildlife Resources in Tennessee have agreed to provide enforcement if a less restrictive methodology is utilized.

The Corps can maximize safety and minimize legal liability by using other alternatives.


I received information from KDFW that a KDFW official met with a Corps official in Nashville recently and proposed these compromises but was met with a pleasant "no". Basically, as mentioned above, the Corps has already made up their minds and the meetings are to inform the public and not take input as they indicate. This above proposal was also sent to our Congressional representatives.

If there is any possibility of getting some compromise out of the Corps, it will only come if you contact your Congressional leaders and attend the meetings in force. I know there have been a number of petitions circulated etc...but personal contact with your Congressional leaders and a show of support at the meetings is basically the only hope we have at this point. So, if your not happy, go to the meetings and call your Congressional leaders today...time is short.

As far as the comment about "why not Ky Dam". Ky Dam is controlled by the TVA....not the Corps....but if the Corps puts these restrictions up on Barkley Dam, it certainly opens up the door for the TVA to follow suit on Ky Dam.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

[IronWorker]

Thank you for your clarification on Ky Dam being controlled by the TVA and not the Corp of Enginers.

[missionFISHIN]

I live in Russell Springs and would just like to encourage everyone in our area to attend the Somerset meeting in support of keeping the river access open to the dam in the Cumberland River. I will be there with several others from our area.
I know a guy drowned about 2 miles below the dam a few years ago, fishing from the bank and another guy drowned swimming accross the river about 2.5 miles below the dam but what I can't seem to find is any record of anyone drowning from a boat within the 500 foot area that they are talking about restricting. Does anyone know of anybody that has drowned there?

[peter]

Public information meetings set for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding restricted areas around dams

Frankfort, KY. - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers set two public meetings in Kentucky for January to inform the public about implementation of plans to restrict boat access near locks and dams on the Cumberland River and all of its tributaries.

The first meeting will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. CST at the Badgett Playhouse Theater at 1831 JH O'Bryan Ave. on Jan. 10 in Grand Rivers, Ky. The second meeting is in Somerset from 6 to 8 p.m. EST Jan. 24. The meeting will be held at Suite 300 at the Somerset Center for Rural Development at 2292 U.S. 27. Make sure to turn at Traffic Light 15.

The new restrictions are based on a 1996 policy that prohibits water bound access to areas above and below dams. This will impact Martin’s Fork, Laurel River, Barkley and Cumberland lakes in Kentucky.

The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources opposes these restrictions and favor a compromise for boat access when water conditions are safe.

"The below dam restrictions will significantly impact anglers, especially below Lake Cumberland and Lake Barkley," said Ron Brooks, director of fisheries for Kentucky Fish and Wildlife. "Both of these areas support major recreational fisheries that will be negatively affected by these restrictions."

The economic value of the recreational fishery below Lake Barkley is more than $3 million annually. The area below Lake Cumberland supports the highest catch rate and harvest of trout in the entire 75-mile stretch of the Cumberland River from the dam to the Tennessee state line.

[Dave Stewart]

I will be at the first meeting here in Grand Rivers this Thursday and will let you folks know how it went.

Dave

[HURRICANEBOB]

I think, after all is said in done, us fisherman will lose this one. Even with KDFWR support. Here's why.

CFR33, § 207.300(s) Restricted areas at locks and dams. All waters immediately above and below each dam, as posted by the respective District Engineers, are hereby designated as restricted areas. No vessel or other floating craft shall enter any such restricted area at any time. The limits of the restricted areas at each dam will be determined by the responsible District Engineer and market by signs and/or flashing red lights installed in conspicuous and appropriate
places.

All they have to do is ink it on the map, and the law supports them.

Second, I don't think they ought put up a barrier of any type. did some more reading and here's why.

682 F.2d 613

1985 A.M.C. 1812

ESTATE OF Alexander C. CALLAS, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America and United States Army Corps of Engineers, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 81-2578.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Feb. 11, 1982.
Decided June 11, 1982.

20
Finally, the district court found that the government was negligent in failing to erect a physical barrier around the perimeter of the restricted area in front of the dam. There was evidence at trial that such a barrier has been under consideration by the Corps of Engineers for some time and has been tested at another dam on the Mississippi River. Questions about the technical feasibility and effectiveness of the barrier plan, however, remain unresolved. The buoy-type barriers that have been tested have tended to collect debris discharged from the dam and have required costly measures to attach the buoys' anchors to the concrete floor of the river. Moreover, Corps officials expressed the fear that a physical barrier might actually exacerbate the danger by creating a convenient and secure place to which fishermen might lash their boats while fishing in the perilous waters below the roller gates. Rather than protecting unwary boaters from the danger of the backcurrent, a physical barrier mandated by the district court could create a kind of attractive nuisance worsening the situation. These considerations confirm that the decision whether to install such a barrier involves questions of practicability and feasibility (including cost) and is, therefore, somewhere within the ambit of the discretionary function exception. See Griffin v. U. S., 500 F.2d 1059, 1064 (3d Cir. 1974). It would therefore have been improper to base liability on the government's failure to erect a physical barrier.

So whether or not they install a barrier, and I think they should not to save us tax payers $$$, I think we lose when the ink hits the nav chart, and the Corps cites CFR33.

And yep, I think the corps are acting for safety, but also to avoid any chancce of being considered negligent for not warning and enforcing a restricted area below dams that could lead to $$$ liability as well as loss of life (potential).

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov...682.F2d.613.81...

Last clip, even if folks have to fish farther back from teh dam, won't they still go and try their luck at the new locations? I think to some degree yes, and I think that erodes part of the economic impact arguement.

[peter]

Who will enforce this if it goes into effect? Fish and wildlife is pretty busy with other things we pay them for like stocking fish and doing research from what I can tell.

Would it be under the jurisdiction of The Coast Guard, US Army, State Police, County Police, Local Sheriff, Rental Security Personnel?

Are we talking about a law or some sort of administrative regulation?

I guess through some web of agreements between various governmental entities it would fall on the designated enforcement entity for that body of water.