Questions regarding the River Development

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Lorax

--------------
ByVision2025
"The Arkansas ceased being a prairie river when Keystone was built. It is a hydro power river as evident by the on/off nature of the generation regime."
--------------------
Please prove your statement that the Arkansas is not a prairie river because the intermittent flow excludes it from that definition.  The Arkansas River downstream from Keystone dam, and above it, is a Prairie River Ecosystem.  The key word is Ecosystem.  Ecosystems are NOT defined by one characteristic, such as intermittent water flow, but are affected by them.  Ecosystems are defined by many variables.

The Ecosystem in question is that of a large urbanized city.

[Tony]

Sorry , I WILL stand by that "opinion" just like USACE stands by outmoded flow data to "arrive" at the Q7 stats. flows  for the Arkansas. How about a minimum daily flow for the river? That hasn't ever gotten to first base with Dam Operations at Keystone -- Sorry but when USACE shows me they give a hoot about the river I will be happy to change my stance !!!

If you are an employee of USACE and I mashed your toe for that I offer apologies-- doesn't change my opinion of the agency.

or better yet DEMONSTRATE impartiality in these proposals -- US Fish and Wildlife and ODWC have openly presented facts for us all to see -- USACE serves at the pleasure of the US taxpayer, not INCOG, not PMg, not Tulsa county.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

Sorry , I WILL stand by that "opinion" just like USACE stands by outmoded flow data to "arrive" at the Q7 stats. flows  for the Arkansas. How about a minimum daily flow for the river? That hasn't ever gotten to first base with Dam Operations at Keystone -- Sorry but when USACE shows me they give a hoot about the river I will be happy to change my stance !!!

If you are an employee of USACE and I mashed your toe for that I offer apologies-- doesn't change my opinion of the agency.

or better yet DEMONSTRATE impartiality in these proposals -- US Fish and Wildlife and ODWC have openly presented facts for us all to see -- USACE serves at the pleasure of the US taxpayer, not INCOG, not PMg, not Tulsa county.

I do not work for anyone in this game.

But the fish and wildlife people's data is off because the low flow in '06 was not a natural or normal occurrence. The Dam was closed for long stretches for repair work during '06. How "natural" is that? And why are the fish and wildlife people not taking that into account? Were they unaware of that? The Corp certainly is.

[cannon_fodder]

Anyone that wants to pretend the river is some wonder of nature can go upstream a few miles to see Keystone... the massive 100 foot tall concrete structure.  Or to 31st street and see Zink Lake, the 800 foot wide concrete structure.  Both of which significantly alter the natural flow of the river.

Also please note the flood control system in place that alters the flows into the river and the path of the river in high flow.  Note the concrete, gravel, and rock walls built to retain the river on its man altered course (river's tend to meander in, out and around their existing banks).  Note the bulldozers removing sand from the river bottom. Note the power plants utilizing the water, evaporating large portions, and returning heated water to the flow.  Also note the extreme muddiness of the water caused by accelerated erosion upstream.

If it was a natural river, it would have flooded most of West Tulsa and a large portion along Riverside on through Bixby, Jenks, and Broken Arrow during our extremely wet spring/early summer.  Last year, during the drought, it would have look as barren as it did when the dam was closed for maintenance.  The man made structures temper the flow of the river... reducing both the highest highs and the lowest lows.

I understand the nature of the river as a boom or bust prairie river and appreciate its nuances.  However, like most people I too find the prospect of pools of water more appealing than a visible trash laden sand bar interspersed with stagnant cesspool.  The notion of having a natural river gently flowing through our fair city expired with the 1920's and was out of memory by the construction of Keystone in the 1960's.

[tim huntzinger]

Yeah, screw the fish! Screw the birds! We want a stagnant, polluted, stanky-butt reflecting pool!

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

Sorry , I WILL stand by that "opinion" just like USACE stands by outmoded flow data to "arrive" at the Q7 stats. flows  for the Arkansas. How about a minimum daily flow for the river? That hasn't ever gotten to first base with Dam Operations at Keystone -- Sorry but when USACE shows me they give a hoot about the river I will be happy to change my stance !!!

If you are an employee of USACE and I mashed your toe for that I offer apologies-- doesn't change my opinion of the agency.

or better yet DEMONSTRATE impartiality in these proposals -- US Fish and Wildlife and ODWC have openly presented facts for us all to see -- USACE serves at the pleasure of the US taxpayer, not INCOG, not PMg, not Tulsa county.

7Q2 is not a Corps standard that is THE regulatory standard for all streams in Oklahoma, they do not set it OWRB does.  Get real, locally we just came through a worse condition than the dust bowl and there was no reported fish kill on the river here.  I know, as I am out on it many times a week for recreation and it did not happen in my stretch of the river.

What facts from ODWC and USFW?  Prior to this study there was no compressive environmental inventory of the Arkansas River through Tulsa County and the preliminary data presented from that effort (and the final report is not yet done)is not detremental.

The principal premise for the river plan is "water in the river."   NOT to have the big on/off switch that SWAPA controls throws to causes such changes in the river flow.  The biologists involved in the Master Plan effort identified that low flow and fish passage are significant issues, no challenges here.  Now comes a plan to eliminate the vast majority of low flow events and provides fish passage through any dams constructed that will help with water quality by introducing more oxygen, providing better structure habitat, flow regulation, and oh by the way great recreation and economic development for the community but you sound like doing nothing is better, guess some just find security in a screwed up river.  Me I want better!

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Yeah, screw the fish! Screw the birds! We want a stagnant, polluted, stanky-butt reflecting pool!

What would it not be pleasant like the Zink lake area?  Am I missing something here?

[Tony]

I understand quite well where the standard comes from --

You have a lot of suppositions YOUR design will help the river -- SHOW me past models where plans like yours worked as designed? This is NEW ground you are trodding on -- but an OLD dam design   --  which design is LIMITED by what USACE will permit - so get off your high horse holier than thou CRAP. I RECALL (been around a long time) that the PROMISES of Zink were never met either -- in fact Zink is the big demise of fish populations right now -- YOUR design is a drop gate CONTROLLED FLOW based on FLAWED river flow data. Just the facts -- you build me an uncontrolled rapid dam and I could see a way to side with you -- but that isn't happening, your design is BAD during medium or low flow periods for the fish --BTW what CFS constitues the point where water will top your designs?  A series of smaller pools and lower elevation rises would accomplish what you PRETEND to do all without a huge cost tag. We will contunue to differ on the how -- the IDEA of a clean,living corridor is long past due.

Who is the biologist on your planning team ? HMMM the SILENCE is deafening.

[sauerkraut]

Any plans they have to develope the river they need to make sure it passes the "Flood~Test".

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Yeah, screw the fish! Screw the birds! We want a stagnant, polluted, stanky-butt reflecting pool!

As always, you add so much to the conversation

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

I understand quite well where the standard comes from --

You have a lot of suppositions YOUR design will help the river -- SHOW me past models where plans like yours worked as designed? This is NEW ground you are trodding on -- but an OLD dam design   --  which design is LIMITED by what USACE will permit - so get off your high horse holier than thou CRAP. I RECALL (been around a long time) that the PROMISES of Zink were never met either -- in fact Zink is the big demise of fish populations right now -- YOUR design is a drop gate CONTROLLED FLOW based on FLAWED river flow data. Just the facts -- you build me an uncontrolled rapid dam and I could see a way to side with you -- but that isn't happening, your design is BAD during medium or low flow periods for the fish --BTW what CFS constitues the point where water will top your designs?  A series of smaller pools and lower elevation rises would accomplish what you PRETEND to do all without a huge cost tag. We will contunue to differ on the how -- the IDEA of a clean,living corridor is long past due.

Who is the biologist on your planning team ? HMMM the SILENCE is deafening.

Dude.  Easy on the caffeine.  You're tilting at windmills.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Tony

I understand quite well where the standard comes from --

You have a lot of suppositions YOUR design will help the river -- SHOW me past models where plans like yours worked as designed? This is NEW ground you are trodding on -- but an OLD dam design   --  which design is LIMITED by what USACE will permit - so get off your high horse holier than thou CRAP. I RECALL (been around a long time) that the PROMISES of Zink were never met either -- in fact Zink is the big demise of fish populations right now -- YOUR design is a drop gate CONTROLLED FLOW based on FLAWED river flow data. Just the facts -- you build me an uncontrolled rapid dam and I could see a way to side with you -- but that isn't happening, your design is BAD during medium or low flow periods for the fish --BTW what CFS constitues the point where water will top your designs?  A series of smaller pools and lower elevation rises would accomplish what you PRETEND to do all without a huge cost tag. We will contunue to differ on the how -- the IDEA of a clean,living corridor is long past due.

Who is the biologist on your planning team ? HMMM the SILENCE is deafening.

Dude.  Easy on the caffeine.  You're tilting at windmills.

Agreed.  

Tony, try calmer.  You might get your point across.  My opinion.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:Originally posted by Tony

Hello Pro proponents -this is ANTI typing -- The Arkansas Thru Tulsa is a braided Prairie river -- its not the upper Canadian (in OKC) its not the Mississippi, Missouri etc. It is what it is -- why are we not celebrating what our river is? Why are we trying to make it over into something it is not nor will ever be?

It will be an ecological disaster for our river if current development plans succeed -- its GREAT that in this discourse people are actually talking about our Water Resource through Tulsa  - we also have to remember this river is important to ALL OKLAHOMANS and not just the development groups -- please be thorough in you study of the plans for the river, read what has been written about the 230 year History for low head dams, then judge for yourself how you should vote Oct. 9.

The Arkansas ceased being a prairie river when Keystone was built.  It is a hydro power river as evident by the on/off nature of the generation regime.  No prairie river sees flow daily flow extremes of the magnitude that the Arkansas through Tulsa sees.   This is why the Army Corps of Engineers is involved in the Arkansas River corridor Master Plan work because they know that by today's standards they screwed up the river environment with the construction of a flood control/power generation/navigation project.

Doesn't this mean we will be tinkering with the river for the rest of all time? This is probably a corp of engineer question, to get an accurate answer.
 
I remember My mom telling me when I was a kid, "Jeff quit playing with that hole in your shirt! you're going to make it bigger"

[Tony]

No I am tilting at INCOG who hides behind we are a friend of the river when they actually are NOT --

Causing a net loss in wildlife is not being a friend to the river -- this is WHY INCOG would not put a biologist on THEIR team -- they already knew what the results would be of a biologists PROFESSIONAL opinion.

Or maybe I am tilting at the wind -- its hard to hit a dodging target !!!!

Now where did I put that cup of coffee[}:)]

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Tony

I understand quite well where the standard comes from --

You have a lot of suppositions YOUR design will help the river -- SHOW me past models where plans like yours worked as designed? This is NEW ground you are trodding on -- but an OLD dam design   --  which design is LIMITED by what USACE will permit - so get off your high horse holier than thou CRAP. I RECALL (been around a long time) that the PROMISES of Zink were never met either -- in fact Zink is the big demise of fish populations right now -- YOUR design is a drop gate CONTROLLED FLOW based on FLAWED river flow data. Just the facts -- you build me an uncontrolled rapid dam and I could see a way to side with you -- but that isn't happening, your design is BAD during medium or low flow periods for the fish --BTW what CFS constitues the point where water will top your designs?  A series of smaller pools and lower elevation rises would accomplish what you PRETEND to do all without a huge cost tag. We will contunue to differ on the how -- the IDEA of a clean,living corridor is long past due.

Who is the biologist on your planning team ? HMMM the SILENCE is deafening.

Dude.  Easy on the caffeine.  You're tilting at windmills.

Agreed.  

Tony, try calmer.  You might get your point across.  My opinion.

Exactly. I am about to start hating fish and not giving a dang about them. May purposely push for any dams to not have any consideration for the stupid things. He is starting to sound like the Randi Miller of fish proponents. No matter what he says whether it is true or not, I will go against it because he is so hateful and unyielding. No compromise, no consideration, no reaching out, just harsh words.