Fish & Wildlife Study Impact On River Plan

[RecycleMichael]

I wanted to show a link and a quote from the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation web site. This come from a research project entitled "Assessment of the Arkansas River Throughout Tulsa County". This quote is from the section on striped bass.

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/striperresearch/study.php

Here is the quote from the study...

As of date, little research and attention has been directed at this system and predictions of how fish populations would be altered by these dams is only speculative. Sufficient baseline data is needed in order for the ODWC to take a stand on this issue or to make suggestions on dam construction (i.e. fish passage and striped bass collection

I know you fishermen know everything, but others who really study the river and not just trying to get dinner think otherwise.

[Tony]

You are right, ODWC studies are NOT complete but ongoing -- it is NOT SPECULATIVE that these dams will alter fish populations -- I could cite about a couple of hundred studies on other river systems, we don't have to rehash that fact-- since this is such a POLITICALLY charged subject our Wildlife officials can't cite past studies in other rivers -- but I am glad this issue FORCED population studies for a baseline. Goggle Low Head Fish impacts read the reports by MANY fisheries experts all over the country.

[TheArtist]

Will you quit citing "Low Head Dams" These dams are not like any of those.

And can you explain how these full grown bass and other fish can migrate up river to spawn in your 2" of water? This river floods, this river dries out. The Sand Springs dam will allow more water to flow during more times of the day, during more days throughout more years than happens now, including through Zink Lake. That sounds like an improvement to me. If there is no water or a minimal amount of water running the lakes can be emptied if need be and the river bottom will be there just as it would be if the dams werent there.

[Tony]

William just shows you have never been in the river  -- ever watched 20-30# salmon migrate on TV (I expect you never saw a wild one) all fish can scoot across shallow water for quite some distance  -- they do this mostly at night - sometimes during the day -- I have seen 20# fish get through shallows and wonder how they did it. A lazy old largemouth bass won't because they are NOT as well adapted to riverine environments, nor do they migrate to spawn OR require a free flowing river ---so just because they are a popular and recognized name they don't compare with real river fish -- Take a look at the physiology of how particular species of fish are shaped and you will understand form follows function, largemouth bass is an ambush predator best suited to a large reservoir  -- then look at a Striped Bass or Gar for that matter -- they are designed to move up rivers -- contrary to the "uneducated" statement by an admitted NON- expert. You with an Artist tag should be able to understand lines and shapes [}:)] But I digress My M.S. is in Range and Wildlife management, 1975 TTU Lubbock TX. Not that I get to use it much nowadays. And NO I DON'T work for the government in any form or fashion. These are LOW HEAD DAMS by very definition, is a structure placed within the confines of a floodplain with the purpose of backing up water -- if I can't drive a boat over them they are obstructions to navigation.

I do however care about clean water, our fish, and our wildlife -- this proposal is close, but not quite there. The only way out of this conundrum is to vote NO.

King Vic Vreeland is running so SCARED he won't get HIS dam he went on KRMG to rebut a scientific EXPERT yesterday  -- too bad he is not man enough to say things face to face. This will all eventually end up in Federal Court -- stay tuned.

[TheArtist]

Psh, I would have thought it was obvious that I wasn't talking about salmon moving up the Arkansas River in Tulsa. My mention of bass was in relation to your mention of White Bass and Striped Bass, (that do migrate to spawn, not that that was important, the important thing is that they migrate) They may have been native to the Mississippi basin, but its disnengenuous to suggest that their "native reach" was this far up that basin.

I care about the fish and the birds and I would like to hear about possible options to improve the dams if it is possible. Not a blanket statement that says no low water dams period. I would like to have the dams and will argue, mostly in order to learn, to figure out if these dams really are the "destroyers of fish" you describe, and if there are any alternative dam designs. If these dams will be worse on the whole and there are no viable changes or options that can be made for any dam design or usage. Then I will be against these dams. I cant believe that it is not possible to design a system that works. I can not believe its not possible.

It may be too expensive, and if thats so, fine.

I would be against any dams due to environmental concerns if...

They really will not allow the fish to migrate (for whatever reason they are doing so lol)

or

The alternatives or remedies are not possible due to costs. Again, I do not believe there are not any possible alternative designs or possible remedies. If we can put a man on the moon we can get a fish upstream lol.

[Tony]

My point is it COULD be done, have elevation rises, ponds (just won't be as deep) NATURAL sediment movement (without the need to have the drop gate design) with a rapid style elevation drop from the raised areas, in low flow some fish would still migrate (up or down)--- the proposals are "my way or the highway" right now on dam design -- the SAME USACE engineer who had a hand in Zinks design is AGAIN working on the two proposed dams - and  just ADMITTED IN A PRIOR THREAD that Zink construction ran out of money so HIS plan didn't succeed (he could see by aerial reconissance his design would have worked) (give me a break) -

Take a drive this weekend , up old hwy 51 past the refineries, and along the river, take the turn right at the baitshop in Sand Springs and keep following the river till you get to Swift Park boat launch, look at that LONG pool created NATURALLY by the rock shoal 1 mile downstream, then picture that same pool in six or seven locations thru town -- Fish get by it just fine - it doesn't sand in, there is ZERO money spent maintaining it, in places it is ten feet deep --you can walk or wade in it, put a boat on it, walk the rock bed, lay on the rock shelf INTERACT with the river-- you and I probably aren't too far off in agreement on what looks good -- however if the knuckle head planners would listen to EXPERT Fisheries and Wildlife folks I might be able to vote yes were the ambitious dam designs changed -- and before 2025 jumps on here with the web address, believe me I HAVE STUDIED INCOGS plan, and Kaisers proposals --

Here is a question for Vision 2025 why has no open public comment to this plan been allowed in ANY of the INCOG pep rallies -- what are you trying to HIDE? This has NOT been an open public process, I for one do NOT trust INCOG, nor Tulsa County Gov't -- with good reason I believe.

BTW White Bass (sand bass) are our STATE FISH.

[sauerkraut]

That wildlife study and protection is a bunch of bs. Let's build it first and let the wild life adapt to it. Wildlife is very adaptable. If we had to have all those enviromental & wildlife studies back in the 1950's we'd have no interstate system today. We'd have alot fewer roads & highways too. The same goes with Alaska oil drilling -we have $3.00 a gallon gasoline because we can't drill for Alaska oil in some bleak ugly remote landsacpe that is full of mosquotoes because the enviromental wackos don't want to. Next summer we most likely may have $4.00 a gallon gasoline as a result.[xx(]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

That wildlife study and protection is a bunch of bs. Let's build it first and let the wild life adapt to it. Wildlife is very adaptable. If we had to have all those enviromental & wildlife studies back in the 1950's we'd have no interstate system today. We'd have alot fewer roads & highways too. The same goes with Alaska oil drilling -we have $3.00 a gallon gasoline because we can't drill for Alaska oil in some bleak ugly remote landsacpe that is full of mosquotoes because the enviromental wackos don't want to. Next summer we most likely may have $4.00 a gallon gasoline as a result.[xx(]

And we would have been better off for it. Bring on $10 gallon gas and lets get on to better technologies for survival.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

My point is it COULD be done, have elevation rises, ponds (just won't be as deep) NATURAL sediment movement (without the need to have the drop gate design) with a rapid style elevation drop from the raised areas, in low flow some fish would still migrate (up or down)--- the proposals are "my way or the highway" right now on dam design -- the SAME USACE engineer who had a hand in Zinks design is AGAIN working on the two proposed dams - and  just ADMITTED IN A PRIOR THREAD that Zink construction ran out of money so HIS plan didn't succeed (he could see by aerial reconissance his design would have worked) (give me a break) -

Take a drive this weekend , up old hwy 51 past the refineries, and along the river, take the turn right at the baitshop in Sand Springs and keep following the river till you get to Swift Park boat launch, look at that LONG pool created NATURALLY by the rock shoal 1 mile downstream, then picture that same pool in six or seven locations thru town -- Fish get by it just fine - it doesn't sand in, there is ZERO money spent maintaining it, in places it is ten feet deep --you can walk or wade in it, put a boat on it, walk the rock bed, lay on the rock shelf INTERACT with the river-- you and I probably aren't too far off in agreement on what looks good -- however if the knuckle head planners would listen to EXPERT Fisheries and Wildlife folks I might be able to vote yes were the ambitious dam designs changed -- and before 2025 jumps on here with the web address, believe me I HAVE STUDIED INCOGS plan, and Kaisers proposals --

I know that area and love it dearly. You describe it accurately and it works well because nature designed it to. But you carry it too far. First off the geology on that part of the river is different than further downstream around Tulsa and Jenks. Much rockier and surrounded by higher mtns. Thank the Lord there are no big cities in that area.

The area around Chandler and then again Turkey Mtn. is similar but even different still. I don't see that area being recreated in the flat, sandy areas from 11th street to Jenks.

[Vision 2025]

From the Tulsa Audubon Update - with the topics of Eagles/Trash/River

"River Development Tax

Finally, you have certainly heard about the proposed tax to pay for building low water dams on the Arkansas River, and other river infrastructure projects. TAS will not be taking a stand on the issues of a tax increase. But I can tell you that the master plan, which would be implemented by this proposal, is overall a good plan. It has been developed over the last three years with significant input from the the USFWS, the Okla Wildlife Dept, and Tulsa Audubon. There is a great emphasis on preserving the natural aspect of the river, and preserving habitat, especially for Least Terns and Bald Eagles. While not every concern has been fully addressed yet, the people working on this have a sincere concern in these areas. This is not a "pie in the sky" proposal, in contrast to The Channels, which did not seriously consider the impacts of their proposal.

So I can say the plan is good, and we have in the past endorsed the plan. How it is paid for and implemented is for each of us to decide."

[Tony]

So I will ASK again where is the BIOLOGIST on INCOG's planning team

You planners know FULL WELL that this is NOT a biologically freindly proposal. BUT your PROFESSIONAL engineering degree makes you all biological experts.

So the Audobon society is weighing in -- they don't say WHAT parts of INCOG's plan they do NOT like , just reply in generalities -- I have made it clear what part the Fishermen who use the river don't like -- and Waterboy that area COULD be duplicated at about 1/3 the cost of the present plans (not that I care about the cost) -- it is ROCKY from below the OLD REMOVED low head dam above 75 bridge down to just past the Aquarium, (the only place these proposed dams could be sited)

And progress as defined by others would always seek ways to destroy what wild areas we have left -- there should be balance weighed against the potential benefit to Tulsa and the wildlife -- the attitudes of the pros in this I don't understand nor do I care to. Suffice it to say we will agree to disagree and I will keep opposing this particular design.

I can say the IDEA is good, even better if it is reworked to be fish friendly  -- the only part of the plan that is FLAWED is the dam design and flow data being used as a baseline estimate.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

That wildlife study and protection is a bunch of bs. Let's build it first and let the wild life adapt to it. Wildlife is very adaptable. If we had to have all those enviromental & wildlife studies back in the 1950's we'd have no interstate system today. We'd have alot fewer roads & highways too. The same goes with Alaska oil drilling -we have $3.00 a gallon gasoline because we can't drill for Alaska oil in some bleak ugly remote landsacpe that is full of mosquotoes because the enviromental wackos don't want to. Next summer we most likely may have $4.00 a gallon gasoline as a result.[xx(]

And we would have been better off for it. Bring on $10 gallon gas and lets get on to better technologies for survival.

That would result in the USA becoming a poor 3rd world nation. If you want to live in a tin hut shack and use camp fires for cooking and heat that is the path your on. Maybe we could go back to using horses for transportation too.[B)]

[Tiny]

this stuff reminds me of the john anderson song "seminole wind"

ever since the days of old, men would search for wealth untold
they dig for silver and for gold
and leave the empty holes
way down south in the everglades
where the black water rolls and the saw grass sways
the eagles fly and the otters play
in the land of the seminole

chorus:
blow blow seminole wind ... blow like you're never gonna blow again
I'm callin to you like a long lost friend but I don't know who you are
blow blow from the okechobee all the way up from mickinopy
blow across the home of the seminole the aligator and the gar

progress came and took it's toll
and in the name of flood control
they made their plans and they drained the land
now the glades are goin dry.
last time I walked in the swamp
I sat upon a cypress stump
I listened close and I heard the ghost
of ociola cry

chorus again:

you people that want this construction are greedy and self centered and everyone else in the state can just lump it. you don't care about anything other than your own selfish goals ... which is about 17% of tulsa county according to the latest polls. you don't care what damage you do to oklahoma with these dams ... you just want your own personal playground and everyone else be damned. that was the thinking behind zink dam and that's the thinking now. no only does the majority of tulsa county not want these dams ... the whole of the state of oklahoma most likely won't want them but you select few think you have the right to mess it up for everyone else.

[Tony]

We will have $5.00 a gallon gasoline as a RESULT of continuing dependence on Middle East oil - not whether or if we drill in Anwar (which I believe we should, just makes me more money) but your "attitude" shows again in your statement about that area as well.(not that gas prices have anything to do with the river) When gas hits $6 per gallon you had better hope the IC engine is a dinosaur (btw industry forcast three years from now)

There must be a balance struck between development and wild areas -- we can't keep bringing in pavement covering green areas, and polluting our water -- nor can we keep bearing a tax burden that just keeps spiraling up.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Tony


King Vic Vreeland is running so SCARED he won't get HIS dam he went on KRMG to rebut a scientific EXPERT yesterday  -- too bad he is not man enough to say things face to face. This will all eventually end up in Federal Court -- stay tuned.

There are a lot of people I would accuse not being willing to go face-to-face on an issue but Mayor Vic would be the absoulte last person I would ever include in that group.

Oh and just for the record who went to the radio first?