Comments on Slow NO Wake

Brian Christianson,

I just had a 12 minute conversation with Evan Sayre, Fulton Town Chairman as advised by a recent email to the RKLD email list and the recent RKLD blog posts. Since Evan Sayre indicated to me that he's not a big fan of the internet, I figure it's up to me to post the information from the conversation.

Evan indicated to me that the decision process for lifting no-wake orders is a complex one. It involves both the current lake level and the speed that it is dropping. He also indicated that it takes 3 to 4 days to execute the decision to lift the no-wake order because it involves ensuring that all of the buoys in place.

Evan indicated that the decision is made conservatively because of the potential for damage to the river banks. He says that allowing the banks to dry out for a few days before subjecting them to waves helps. He says that in the past the no-wake has been lifted too early and that damage has resulted.

Evan explained the past variability in the water level at the time of releasing the no-wake restriction is a result of differences in the rate that the river is dropping (Based on the bank drying time theory, the no-wake should be dropped at a lower level if the river is dropping quickly) and the uncertainty caused by the 3 or 4 day delay in implementing a no-wake order removal.

We also discussed his opinion of the plan to increase the water level by 8 inches. He thinks that the result of having 8 more inches of water in the summer would be nice, but that the practical matter of implementing the change would subject the river to higher probability of severe flooding. The way he explained it is that the dam at Indianford has support posts for wooden planks across the top of the dam. There are 2 ways that water gets past the dam: Going over the top of the dam and going through the control gates. During a flood, the control gates are open all the way so the amount of water going over the top of the dam affects the magnitude of the flood. The plan to increase the water level would be implemented by re-installing planks across the top of the dam as had been done years ago. The installation and removal of these planks is no easy task and there is no plan to remove them during a period of high flow rate. So inevitably the magnitude of a spring flood would be worsened by the existence of planks on top of the dam. He suggested that last year's flood would have been 6 inches higher had there been planks on the dam. I am somewhat skeptical of that because claim last year the water level downstream of the dam was so high that the dam barely made a bump in the flow. I don't know what is the correct calculation for the impact of planks on the dam for a sever flood like 2008 or a moderate one like 2009.

I suggested to Evan that I think that the ideal river level strategy would be to raise the summer level but to extend the winter drawdown into the late spring past the usual flood danger period. He agreed that that would be an ideal strategy but indicated that it is infeasable because of the affore mentioned issue with planks on the dam.

So my questions for RKLD are:
1. Is Evan Sayre correct about the technical implementation of the higher water level by using year-round planks on the dam?
2. How much would the plan to increase water level would worsen floods when they happen?
3. What does RKLD think of the Fulton's theory that banks need time to dry before removing the no-wake?
4. How can the actual decision process installing and removing no-wake restriction be better publicized? (See the notice Maybe Next Weekend from 5/24)


Please post my comments on the blog.

Ken Brey