Timmy T
For the record, BM was built for flood control FIRST and foremost. Recreation is a by-product and has been incorporated into the lakes operational mandate. Flood control will always be the basis for managment of the lake. The downstream fishery is a 2ndry by product too, which does get some consideration but not much.
As VC said, you need to take your gripe to the Corps and the Fish Commission, specially Mike Kauffman. Mike should be able to help you out if you explain why current mgmt is not beneficial to the down stream "resource". He can't keep track of everything.
I think the point here is that the Corps did not need to dump, 180 cfs for 24 hrs, then cut it back to 110 cfs for 8 hours, then cut it back again to 61 cfs where it is right now (Sept 15). The idea would be, in this instance to have a steadier release of 120 cfs (+/-) over an extended period of time. This would benefit the downstream resource. The "Less is More" theory...Less of a release over a longer period of time.
THe underlying question is did a .35 ft rise in lake elevation create a flood risk??? The decision makers at the Corps may have felt it did or did the lake level encroach on recreational facilities in BM (ie - boat ramps?). I don't know?
But the question should be presented to the Corp and Mike K. IMO - the water could have been managed better. But like VC said, the Corps is not very good at doing that, but if you don't ask them they won't ever know???
So my recommendation is to send the Corps and Mike an email with your complaints. I think they are very valid.