Fish & Wildlife Study Impact On River Plan

[Conan71]

Sounds like there's a little misunderstanding to solve between the USACE and Fish & Wildlife people according to this morning's Tulsa World.

Unfortunately, when I click on the link from the Tulsa World web page to the story "River dams study challenged" it cannt find the page, hopefully it will be up later in the day.

The primary issue is F & W is accusing USACE of using overly-optimistic average flow rates in their study.  Their concern is with inadequate flows created by dams, the build-up of waste or toxins, or reduced dissolved O2 levels in the water which would kill fish.

I think I've made it clear all along that my primary opposition to this plan is the haste with which this vote is being put forth.  If this was fully thought-out and researched, I don't think we'd be hearing conflicting views on environmental impact and what adverse roles the WWT plant and refineries may or may not have on this package.

I'm not against river development and I'm not against paying for it.  The vote is being pushed far too quick and I'm worried about finding out one of two things- either the total package is going to wind up costing double by the time it's finished or we will find out there's a feasibility issue and we won't wind up with half the items promised.  Just because INCOG has worked on this for five years or however long doesn't mean it's perfect, nor that all necessary data has been collected.

I say scuttle the vote, or just vote no and re-propose in six months or a year after we have a firmer understanding of "exactly" what the issues are, what structures are included, and all environmental issues have been satisfied.  

It's okay for a river to be fluid, but the plan to improve it shouldn't be.

[cks511]

The F&W boys story has been the same througout, articles below are from the channels 'dance':
 http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2006/Zones/Ba/W_101806_ZB_8.pdf

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17263491&BRD=2754&PAG=461&dept_id=574068&rfi=6


This Pinc guy is new player who is stirring the pot and imho is just a player.  

I'll go with the F&W services research.  They are on the river as much as once, twice a week.

AGREED, this is too quick a vote.

[Conan71]

What puzzles me is the Corps is responsible for managing the river flow and impoundment of waters upstream.  Seems like they would have excellent historical data on flow and be able to create fairly accurate statistical models.  I believe Keystone Dam has been in operation for over 40 years now.

[waterboy]

We covered this in another thread ( River Plan county sets the ruless" i think) I posted the link for the historical data.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

What puzzles me is the Corps is responsible for managing the river flow and impoundment of waters upstream.  Seems like they would have excellent historical data on flow and be able to create fairly accurate statistical models.  I believe Keystone Dam has been in operation for over 40 years now.

And the 2006 flows were abnormal due to repair work on the Keystone dam requiring it to be closed, not the drought. So, 2006 is not a year where data should be taken from.

But then the Corp knows that whereas it seems the Fish and Wildlife department do not.

[RecycleMichael]

It was odd that the Tulsa World would run this story on the front page of Monday's paper.

This was an employee of a federal agency complaining about the study done by a different federal agency.

The timimg is odd. The angle is odd. These same guys made the same arguments during the Channels discussions and the Tulsa World never printed anything.

What is the World up to printing both sides of an issue?

I disagree with the story, by the way. The same fish problems occured in 2006 and will not be made worse by adding water to the impoundments.

The real crux of their story is that they don't want the Corps of Engineers to use the model used on every other river to estimate low flow times, they want to use a recent year in the model. I don't necessarily disagree.

The argument is really against any dam on the river.

I think Keystone dam changed the river, but was necessary to protect Tulsa. It screwed up the fish as much as anything we have ever done to the Arkansas.

The dam at Sand Springs can be designed to hold back enough water to keep water flowing under dry conditions. Constant flow will be better for the fish than the sandbars we had in 2006.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

It was odd that the Tulsa World would run this story on the front page of Monday's paper.

This was an employee of a federal agency complaining about the study done by a different federal agency.

The timimg is odd. The angle is odd. These same guys made the same arguments during the Channels discussions and the Tulsa World never printed anything.

What is the World up to printing both sides of an issue?

I disagree with the story, by the way. The same fish problems occured in 2006 and will not be made worse by adding water to the impoundments.

The real crux of their story is that they don't want the Corps of Engineers to use the model used on every other river to estimate low flow times, they want to use a recent year in the model. I don't necessarily disagree.

The argument is really against any dam on the river.

I think Keystone dam changed the river, but was necessary to protect Tulsa. It screwed up the fish as much as anything we have ever done to the Arkansas.

The dam at Sand Springs can be designed to hold back enough water to keep water flowing under dry conditions. Constant flow will be better for the fish than the sandbars we had in 2006.

Today's Lorton's World article is not odd when you considered that they probably already recognized that the Kaiser River Tax is going to fail Oct. 9.

They are starting to provide themselves with some cover, including ACTUALLY providing some coverage of Vote NO Press Conferences, Rallies, and Press Releases.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

It was odd that the Tulsa World would run this story on the front page of Monday's paper.

This was an employee of a federal agency complaining about the study done by a different federal agency.

The timimg is odd. The angle is odd. These same guys made the same arguments during the Channels discussions and the Tulsa World never printed anything.

What is the World up to printing both sides of an issue?

I disagree with the story, by the way. The same fish problems occured in 2006 and will not be made worse by adding water to the impoundments.

The real crux of their story is that they don't want the Corps of Engineers to use the model used on every other river to estimate low flow times, they want to use a recent year in the model. I don't necessarily disagree.

The argument is really against any dam on the river.

I think Keystone dam changed the river, but was necessary to protect Tulsa. It screwed up the fish as much as anything we have ever done to the Arkansas.

The dam at Sand Springs can be designed to hold back enough water to keep water flowing under dry conditions. Constant flow will be better for the fish than the sandbars we had in 2006.

It was an odd article. The headline seemed to be designed as a roadside bomb. Very unfair as you then find out its the opinion of one federal Biologist and the Corps is still willing to listen and adjust.

The argument is really against any change in the river at all as anytime you change nature something is affected.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

It was odd that the Tulsa World would run this story on the front page of Monday's paper.

This was an employee of a federal agency complaining about the study done by a different federal agency.

The timimg is odd. The angle is odd. These same guys made the same arguments during the Channels discussions and the Tulsa World never printed anything.

What is the World up to printing both sides of an issue?

I disagree with the story, by the way. The same fish problems occured in 2006 and will not be made worse by adding water to the impoundments.

The real crux of their story is that they don't want the Corps of Engineers to use the model used on every other river to estimate low flow times, they want to use a recent year in the model. I don't necessarily disagree.

The argument is really against any dam on the river.

I think Keystone dam changed the river, but was necessary to protect Tulsa. It screwed up the fish as much as anything we have ever done to the Arkansas.

The dam at Sand Springs can be designed to hold back enough water to keep water flowing under dry conditions. Constant flow will be better for the fish than the sandbars we had in 2006.

Today's Lorton's World article is not odd when you considered that they probably already recognized that the Kaiser River Tax is going to fail Oct. 9.

They are starting to provide themselves with some cover, including ACTUALLY providing some coverage of Vote NO Press Conferences, Rallies, and Press Releases.

I wonder how long it will take Spincycle and Waterbuoy to smarten up and accept the Tulsa Kounty Kommisar Kaiser tax is D.O.A.?

[RecycleMichael]

One of the reasons I am for the river improvement tax is because you are against it, doubleA.

I am willing to pay a little more for a better place to live...you are whining a little more and living a bitter life.

[waterboy]

The more you learn about a subject, the more you realize that decisions are rarely black/white. The way you can tell who's well informed is by their iron clad positions on a subject. This project is a good example of that. After looking at it from all angles, one can defend both positions. But if you look at the cost vs the benefits and take a pragmatic view you can't help but support it.

Look at the alternative. Another failed proposal means fewer and fewer river development efforts in the future as interest wanes. The river stays unimproved, with no clean up cause the public shows it doesn't really care. Roads and infrastructure stay pretty much status quo. Sewer treatment plants become invisible again yet continue to smell. Candidates for office, buoyed by the prospect of being elected by being against stuff, become less and less progressive and more status quo.

The city begins to resemble all the negative features so joyfully pointed out by detractors.
Onward thru the fog AA.

[Rico]

This article in the TW just like the ballot and rush to get the "River Tax" pushed through.... is what the average joe is going to base his vote on.

Mental Giants will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff....

The others will just read the Big print and vote.

If they truly believed in this plan they should have taken a better approach to educating the public.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

One of the reasons I am for the river improvement tax is because you are against it, doubleA.

I am willing to pay a little more for a better place to live...you are whining a little more and living a bitter life.

If you're willing to pay more, and are not taxed ENOUGH, then Why Wait until Oct. 9??

Start sending your additional tax contributions immediately to:

TAX ME MORE CLUB
Chairman Randi Miller
c/o Tulsa County Commission
500 S. Denver
Tulsa OK  74103

She'll see that the money is spent "For the Children".
[]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

The more you learn about a subject, the more you realize that decisions are rarely black/white. The way you can tell who's well informed is by their iron clad positions on a subject. This project is a good example of that. After looking at it from all angles, one can defend both positions. But if you look at the cost vs the benefits and take a pragmatic view you can't help but support it.

Look at the alternative. Another failed proposal means fewer and fewer river development efforts in the future as interest wanes. The river stays unimproved, with no clean up cause the public shows it doesn't really care. Roads and infrastructure stay pretty much status quo. Sewer treatment plants become invisible again yet continue to smell. Candidates for office, buoyed by the prospect of being elected by being against stuff, become less and less progressive and more status quo.

The city begins to resemble all the negative features so joyfully pointed out by detractors.
Onward thru the fog AA.

Waterboy, if the tax does not pass I don't think river development will fade away.  We are only a year removed from the ambitious "Channels" announcement.  Even though that plan apparently is DOA, we do owe the Stakeholders a debt of gratitude for moving discussion further along about the river far more than has happened in over 20 years.

If it fails, they will sit back, take a look at where it failed, hopefully collect more data, shore up details, and come up with a better marketing plan with more information.

I don't think interest will wane, it still needs to be built-up and I think that's possible if everyone will just be patient for another six months to a year.  Rushing this to a vote was a huge mistake, IMO.  I think too many voters feel like there is a gun to their head to make this happen now and the pants-wetting aspect of getting this approved right away scares some people who have a general distrust of our city and county governments.

One glaring problem I've seen all along is this is brought up for a county vote and you have the leaders of two of the largest suburbs speaking out loudly against it.  Secondly, they should have let Smaligo or Perry be the ramrod on this project instead of the lightning rod that Randi Miller is.  I notice Terry Simonson has been eerily silent for the last six weeks on this issue- he is someone most Tulsan's have trusted for a long time.  

V-2025 worked because there was something for every community and demographic in the county.

I think the city needs to take the lead on it's part of the river and let Jenks and Sand Springs follow suit if they are interested as well.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

This article in the TW just like the ballot and rush to get the "River Tax" pushed through.... is what the average joe is going to base his vote on.

Mental Giants will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff....

The others will just read the Big print and vote.

If they truly believed in this plan they should have taken a better approach to educating the public.

I agree totally. They needed a new, different approach put together with detailed answers. Instead we got image advertising. Ironically it reinforces the dis-connect between the average working guy and the professional class which truly exists. Perhaps its a time constraint issue or just the wrong ad agency.

Why is it rushed? Perhaps they don't want this on a general election ballot where there is greater turnout, maybe they worry that the economy will tank within 6months, maybe they read the wrong polls. Good question though.