Tulsa firm designing low water dams.

[sgrizzle]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080703_16_A5_hCHMHi80809

quote:
Panel recommends Tulsa firm for dam designs

by: KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
7/3/2008  12:00 AM

CH2M Hill is one of 6 firms responding to a request for qualifications.


An evaluation committee has unanimously recommended CH2M Hill of Tulsa to be the design and engineering firm for the Arkansas River low-water dams project.

The county commissioners will vote on the recommendation Monday.

CH2M, which did work on Confluence Park in Denver, was one of six companies that responded to the county's request for qualifications issued in January.

Tulsa County Purchasing Director Linda Dorrell said, "It was a very, very strong team; they had worked together on numerous other projects successfully."

Dorrell said the county will take 45 to 60 days to negotiate a contract with CH2M.

By law, public entities are not allowed to consider price when evaluating proposals for engineering work on public projects.

However, Dorrell said that if the county is unable to reach a contract agreement with CH2M, the county would come back to the firm that ranked second in the selection process, C.H. Guernsey & Co.

"I don't anticipate that happening," she said.

Dorrell said the committee used weighted evaluation criteria based on four factors: the qualifications of the firm, including experience and responsiveness; the qualifications of the key individuals who would be performing the work; references from comparable past projects; and the firm's demonstrated understanding of the proposed project.

After the evaluation committee had narrowed the field to C.H. Guernsey & Co. and CH2M, the committee's technical team visited three projects completed by each firm.

Therecommendation comes less than a year after county residents rejected a proposal to raise the county sales tax four-tenths of a cent over seven years to pay for $282 million in infrastructure projects.

The private sector had also pledged $117 million for improvements along the banks of the river if voters approved the project.

The thrust of the proposal was to build low-water dams in Sand Springs and Jenks and to modify the Zink Dam in Tulsa, projects first envisioned in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

After the vote, county commissioners decided to look for ways to keep river development alive. Commissioners in December voted to move forward with the design and engineering work approved by voters in Vision 2025.

Officials have estimated that it will cost about $100 million in 2008 dollars to complete the dam projects.

About half of that is expected to come from federal matching funds authorized in last year's Water Resources Development Act.

An additional $10 million in Vision 2025 and Four to Fix the County funds plus $25 million in state bond money have been targeted for the project.

Dorrell said she expects CH2M to begin work as soon as a contract agreement is reached.

The design, engineering and permitting work on Zink Dam should take about 18 months to two years once it begins, with the same work on the two new dams to take as long as three or four years, officials have said.

[TheArtist]

So theoretically in about 5 years we could have the dams in place?

One question I have though. Will they be able to do the larger dam for Sand Springs that was in the river tax vote? Or will they be doing the smaller one that was in 2025?

I think its important to do the larger one, and since we do have a few years until anything is built it gives us time to find the extra money it would take.

[patric]

Are these more "drowning pool" dams or a safer design than what we have at the pedestrian bridge?

[SXSW]

I'm concerned that there is no mention of locks.  Not combining locks with the low water dams is a big mistake.  It will be costly when we decide to do it later on.

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

oh you wanted locks?  oh too late for that...we'll have to pass another tax for the locks!

Maybe the next river tax vote (the one that ISN'T a county vote) will address navigation and the other dams.  I have a feeling it will, and with just Tulsa it will pass.  Anyone know when we should expect another vote?

[Conan71]

I want locks and cream cheese...

Maybe the engineers will have a public forum to get input from citizens.  I don't know how useful a lock would be on the Jenks dam without another dam down-stream of there, certainly it could make sense on the Sand Springs dam and would be great if they could add one at Zink Dam.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

quote:Originally posted by inteller

oh you wanted locks?  oh too late for that...we'll have to pass another tax for the locks!

Maybe the next river tax vote (the one that ISN'T a county vote) will address navigation and the other dams.  I have a feeling it will, and with just Tulsa it will pass.  Anyone know when we should expect another vote?

I'm sure it'll come up after the next library vote since many thought it would come up for a revote quickly too.

[SXSW]

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not.  Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different.  However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

And about the library, I would hope we get another chance to vote on that with a better site and vision.  I personally would like to see a plan created by the city to bring a convention hotel to the library site that also expands and directly connects to the adjacent convention center.  The old city hall tower would be used for county offices or torn down to make way for an expanded conv. center.  A new signature library would then be built at 3rd and Denver across from the BOk Center.  The federal building would be rebuilt in south downtown near TCC and that site would become a park in between the hotel, conv. center, arena, and library.  Frisco and Elwood Aves. and 5th Street would be restored to their original grid before they were wiped out by the Civic Center in the 60's.

[Kenosha]

Because the Oklahoma 'River' is not a river.  It's a drainage ditch, with rip rap on its banks.

[sgrizzle]

I saw a guy drive across "The Oklahoma River" in an ATV. Tires barely got wet and definitely never touched dirt.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not.  Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different.  However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

And about the library, I would hope we get another chance to vote on that with a better site and vision.  I personally would like to see a plan created by the city to bring a convention hotel to the library site that also expands and directly connects to the adjacent convention center.  The old city hall tower would be used for county offices or torn down to make way for an expanded conv. center.  A new signature library would then be built at 3rd and Denver across from the BOk Center.  The federal building would be rebuilt in south downtown near TCC and that site would become a park in between the hotel, conv. center, arena, and library.  Frisco and Elwood Aves. and 5th Street would be restored to their original grid before they were wiped out by the Civic Center in the 60's.

I recall that the Vision 2025 program director posted here some time ago that a lock system was not feasible due to the rate of fall (in altitude) of the Arkansas River through Tulsa. It's probably the same reason the McClellan-Kerr system routes only to far east Tulsa/Catoosa instead of through the city. These are not issue that you would have when damming a drainage ditch. Construction costs in a drainage ditch would have to have been only a fraction on what building a more dams on the Arkansas (being a real river) will cost as well.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not.  Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different.  However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

I can understand your frustration.  There are many differences between the two rivers.  One huge difference is that here in Tulsa we have several federally endangered species that were not present in the previously brush-hogged Oklahoma River lakes corridor.  In addition we have multiple industrial and municipal discharge sources that work well in moving water but would not bode well in a series of constant shallow pool lakes.  

Remember, these projects are (potentially) the first of many possible projects along and in the river as identified in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and hopefully as it becomes feasible additional projects and enhancements can be added.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by patric

Are these more "drowning pool" dams or a safer design than what we have at the pedestrian bridge?

Patric, it is the absolute intent of these projects that both the new dams and the reconfiguration of Zink will provide as safe of a structure as is practical.  In our reviews, we have seen many different approaches to eliminating the roller effect which are aesthetically pleasing, safer than the current Zink, and offer enhanced recreation features.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

So theoretically in about 5 years we could have the dams in place?

One question I have though. Will they be able to do the larger dam for Sand Springs that was in the river tax vote? Or will they be doing the smaller one that was in 2025?

I think its important to do the larger one, and since we do have a few years until anything is built it gives us time to find the extra money it would take.

Some form of the variable crest height for the Sand Springs Dam is in the intended scope of improvements.  We believe this feature will greatly enhance the downstream flow regime in the River during the majority of conditions (today = no difference as in during a long term low flow condition, like 2 summers ago). The exact method by which this diurnal improved low flow is accomplished is a part of what this engineering team will determine.

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not.  Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different.  However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

I can understand your frustration.  There are many differences between the two rivers.  One huge difference is that here in Tulsa we have several federally endangered species that were not present in the previously brush-hogged Oklahoma River lakes corridor.  In addition we have multiple industrial and municipal discharge sources that work well in moving water but would not bode well in a series of constant shallow pool lakes.  

Remember, these projects are (potentially) the first of many possible projects along and in the river as identified in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and hopefully as it becomes feasible additional projects and enhancements can be added.

I understand we have more issues than the Oklahoma River, I figured as much.  However similar large rivers like the Missouri and Ohio have low water dams that allow navigation on the river, and I'm sure they have the same issues with endangered species and industrial discharge.  Wouldn't the dams already be designed to keep water flowing, even at low levels?  I don't see how having a lock on one side (the deeper, rockier west bank most likely) would greatly affect the dam or the river.