Tulsa River Dams pass house despite OKC votes against

[cannon_fodder]

Waterboy:

You referenced something wrong with Keystone, could you elaborate for us non-natives?

[Cats Cats Cats]

Something is messed up. Several have said we'll get this money when pigs fly and now we have swine flu.

Which is obviously airborne.  Whoever that was take it back

[SXSW]

Is the Arkansas river in Tulsa that different than the Arkansas in Muskogee or Fort Smith?  They have dams and locks there that seem to work fine with the silt load, and the river is open to navigation because of the locks.  I'm just trying to understand how the river in Tulsa is that different and why there would be problems.  I do realize that there is more pollution runoff that enters the river in Tulsa but it's that way in every city that has a river. 

I personally would like to see locks installed not because there will be a bunch of boats in the river but in the future I could see us wishing we would've put them in when we did.  I think something like the Devon boats in OKC would do much better on the Arkansas.  And I could see pleasure boats on our river someday if the City is ready for it i.e. rescue boats, regulations, etc.  None of that happens without locks connecting the lakes though. 

I like the idea of keeping the area beneath the existing low water dam open for kayaking and fishing, maybe enhance that asset by building an actual kayaking course utilizing the old PSO jetty.  And then, say, if we ever want to have boats on the river have the deeper, rock-lined west bank act as a canal to access the lock that would be installed in the dam.  I imagine any locks would go on the west bank side of the river because it's deeper with steeper banks, while the east River Parks bank will remain more natural with sandy shoreline and lots of trees.

[Hometown]

I remember the Arkansas before and after Keystone and it looked much the same, before the creation of Zink Lake.

Some folks here have cited other small cities that have dammed their rivers but I am reminded of the Bay Area restoring their Wetlands and Florida restoring the Everglades. 

I wonder about the history of this current focus on "water in the river" here in Tulsa.  I don't know if it started with Editorials in the World, or if it was a grassroots development.   Like just about everything else in Tulsa, I imagine it was a "top down" scenario.  Seeing the genesis of this would tell me alot about who led the charge and why we have embraced this current issue.

But we've survived The Main Mall and the Williams Brothers Ice Skating Rink and Economic Diversification and all the other failed schemes that Tulsa has embarked upon.

Meanwhile, I'm glad there will be a payroll and that Tulsa believes she's gotten something she wants.  Heck, I'll probably be the first one to take visiting tourists on a ride on our paddle wheel steamboat.  They will be delighted that they got to visit the Old South.

Let's face it, with the big boom behind us and the big bust looming, we're all headed off towards singularity anyway. 

[waterboy]

Waterboy:

You referenced something wrong with Keystone, could you elaborate for us non-natives?

I think what you refer to is my remark that the Keystone Dam would probably not be built today, at least not in the same manner. The Corps stopped building such dams about the time they finished ours. It began to be evident that they caused many problems with river ecology and the surrounding ecosystems. The dam itself is nearly at its designated lifespan though it can last a lot longer according to recent reports. No one wants to contemplate the cost of replacing it but eventually it will have to be rebuilt.

Hydro dams certainly are less polluting and a cleaner method of producing energy than coal or hydrocarbons and less risky than nuclear but have a long list of their own environment damage. Here is a link to read a pretty well balanced list of pros and cons.
http://www.ceeonline.org/greenGuide/energy/upload/EnergySources/Hydro.aspx

To summarize, they are hell on fish migration. Shortly after the Keystone Dam started operation species of fish began to dissappear from the river below. Others are stressed, injured and declining in population. Silt builds up along the smaller dams and decreases the reservoir capacity which means larger and larger releases. That has certainly happened at Lake Keystone.  Downstream silt deposits are shifted from the mouth of the river to the smaller dams (like those planned at SS and Jenks.) Those buildups of silt are often contaminated because of vegetation that extracts mercury from the underlying rock formations, then decay and dissolve it into the river. It is exacerbated by metropolitan storm sewer runoff. It doesn't matter if you aren't a fisherman or environmentalist. What follows is a change in the food chain and polluted, silt choked waterways.

The improvements in computer designed and operated turbines that are more efficient mean that low head dams or "run of river" flows can create electricity without such drastic changes to watersheds. No more of these large dams have been built since the sixties though that's probably because no more viable areas are available for them. Wisconsin and Minnesota do a great job of forming alliances of  environmentalists that negotiate with the operators of hydro dams when their licenses come up for renewal to maintain constant flows and fish ladders to keep their rivers alive. What our Corps people and dam proponents here say can't be done, is being done there. Alas, no such co-operation is visible here. In fact, there is only the operators and the developers.

I am skeptical that a large dam is the best way to control flooding on this river. The Yangze Dam in China is going to be the extreme example of that. A better way would be smaller dams with access for fish to migrate combined with channelizing, dredging and moving industry and housing reasonable distances away from the flood prone areas. We did that in a smaller way with our retention ponds after the floods in the late 70's. These areas can be just like the parks and soccer fields in east Tulsa, doing double duty.

[waterboy]

Is the Arkansas river in Tulsa that different than the Arkansas in Muskogee or Fort Smith? 

Yes. Deeper and less fluctuation in river levels. At Muskogee you get the confluence of three rivers, Arkansas, Verdigris and Grand. The barges could not operate without the locks and dams but the consistent water levels make it all happen for them.

Also just because you don't hear any press about siltation and pollution doesn't mean it isn't a problem. The navigation channel needs to be deepened according to their spokesman as it has silted up. The Illinois River is a pretty nasty little waterway these days but its still quite popular and seemingly immune to a tarnished reputation. Its dark green for heavens sake and hard to see the bottom even in shallow water.

[SXSW]

So would our new dams look something like this (minus the lock unless they hopefully decide to add it):



Are there provisions that can be made to improve flow as such to keep siltation at a minimum and protect fish species?

[waterboy]

So would our new dams look something like this (minus the lock unless they hopefully decide to add it):



Are there provisions that can be made to improve flow as such to keep siltation at a minimum and protect fish species?

It looks like they are using a dredger to control silt (bottom right in the pic). There are features that promote fish migration including fish ladders & elevators. It would seem locks could help as well.

Our poster, V2025, should have details of our proposed dams. It is of some note that the original proposals before the Keystone dam was built suggested a dozen or so of these type dams along the river in the Tulsa area. Also note no development along the banks.

[waterboy]

SXSW, you and I both want connectablility along the river. Locks are not the only way to do that but the most commonly known. However they are expensive and require more planning. I am not an engineer so not capable of detailing the alternatives. I can say they would depend on the uses of the river. A lock is not necessary for the craft I use; hpv's and surface effect vehicles. You can easily accomodate them with a sluice or canal or minimum river flows.

Perhaps shallow canals at each dam that are designed somewhat like spurs on railroad tracks or interchanges on a highway. This would allow fish migration and small craft connections. They would also make excellent nodes for development that are easily maintained and regulated.

My concern is that these issues are not being presented to the public and addressed.  Dredging is never discussed. When you start hearing the principals outlining the real, ongoing, longterm costs that these dams will create-security, safety, regulation, maintenance, pollution abatement, etc. then you can be assured that they can be trusted to make them connectable. When you see the issues of public usage confirmed in the designs instead of just drawings of sailboats and marinas, you can start to belive in them. Otherwise its the same shell game as the Zink Lake project with the same dismal results.

[Vision 2025]

I've been monitoring this thread closely and wanted to see what developed without my posting

The issues brought up here and many others are what are presently being evaluated by the design team.  CH2MHill has only been under contract for a few months, is making significant progress (and there is a significant amount of 'stuff' to go through).  Presently, they are focusing on the regulatory side of the equation with agency meetings and discussions.  Looking for holes in the previous data and assumptions made in the study so that we don't run into delays.  Essentially, they are first developing the boundaries, while others (myself included) continue to meet with our Federal and State Delegations plus the Corps headquarters to understand those processes, requirements and traps as we proceed.   

Waterboy, maintenance is a huge topic and WILL NOT be ignored that lesson has been truly learned at Zink.  Key features of these projects will include a variety of means for passive sand control (plus likely access for active measures should the need arise) and the structures will be significantly safer than what we have at Zink.  I share your frustration with sailboats shown in various renderings, I sailed competitively for 25 years and am one of a few who used to sail in Zink regularly (still have the broken rudder to proove it) and know first hand the difficulties of river sailing.  Likely, some areas will be suitable for sailing when flow conditions are right but none of the current projects constructs any marinas (at this time) those will most likely be left to local development.

To those who would like to lock from lake to lake (me included) some things have changed since adoption of the master plan and some have not.  What has not changed is that a series of lakes connected by locks is still not feasible nor is it anticipated to be so at any time in the near future but that does not mean there are not alternate means of connectivity that will be looked at. 

Rest assured, THERE WILL BE A SERIES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS this summer.  These will have multiple missions including updating the public on what the plan is and (importantly) is not, what we anticipate funding for, what can and can't be done (we have limitations that OKC did not have specifically related to endangered species) and very importantly to present preliminary design concepts and take your comments on those as we proceed. 

[SXSW]

That's good to know there will be a planning process with public input.  I do hope somehow locks make it into the plans, or at least the dams are designed as such to allow future construction of locks on one side.  Maybe build the approach canals on each side but just leave out the actual locks which could be added at a later date (or never at all).  I just think completely shutting out the idea of locks would not be wise. 

I was looking at this plan for the Sand Springs dam I found, is this still more/less the plan?  I like the fact that the dam is on the axis of Main St. in Sand Springs.  It would be really neat to see their downtown area extended south along Main down to the river and then a pedestrian bridge built on top of or beside the dam.  I also notice that marina, will the Sand Springs river lake be meant for boats?  If so that makes locks connecting the other lakes that much more important.  Wish I could actually read the labels..

[Vision 2025]

The Sand Springs dam location is as shown and the marina location will likely move further upstream into the River City Park area.

[waterboy]

V2025, I figured you were monitoring. Thanks for replying and reassuring my concerns.

I like the idea of canals bypassing the dams but look forward to any other alternatives. Connectivity is important. I would encourage anyone who can to make that point at these planning meetings.

[SXSW]

V2025, I figured you were monitoring. Thanks for replying and reassuring my concerns.

I like the idea of canals bypassing the dams but look forward to any other alternatives. Connectivity is important. I would encourage anyone who can to make that point at these planning meetings.

I agree, whether it be by lock or another means connectivity is important for the long-term success of the river and its future development.  The idea of an urban lake for boating and fishing from potentially Bixby all the way to almost Lake Keystone is very appealing.

[TheArtist]

I agree, whether it be by lock or another means connectivity is important for the long-term success of the river and its future development.  The idea of an urban lake for boating and fishing from potentially Bixby all the way to almost Lake Keystone is very appealing.

I dont think we want lakes all the way (need some sand bar areas for least tern habitats) and certainly wont get them that way with these 3. The Jenks dam will not back water up all the way to Zink Lake for instance. There will be several miles where the river will pretty much be like it is now. Except for more flow times allowed for by the larger Sand Springs dam.

Are they still considering the SS dam being larger to capture and allow for more flow times?

Plus, I have heard that the Jenks and Zink dams will be the ones done first since there isnt enough money to do all 3 dams yet. Is this really true?


I have been reading the posts on here and listening to the comments about the flow rates and how it can be quite unsafe a lot of the time. I do think it would be nice to have more watercraft of different sorts on parts of the river/lakes. What are some of the possibilites for alerting people to the water flow rates and what craft can or can not be on the river at certain times? Could there perhaps be electronic signs at the marinas and docks which alert people to the conditions? Something that says (current flow rate =  X, small motor boats ok today from 6am-3pm, paddle boats not ok) etc. Kind of like a current and future weather report for the river that you can check online and also see right there at each marina and main landing/dock.