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.