River Tax Do we have all the facts?

[mac]

If you haven't read today's paper here is one article that is a must read. Do we have all the facts?


Much work remains on river plan

by: JERRY J. BRABANDER
10/6/2007

First, let me say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not oppose the Arkansas River Development Proposal. As with any undertaking of this magnitude, however, the devil is in the details, and our agency will continue to work with project proponents and other agencies to fine-tune implementation plans, consistent with our authorities.

The Sept. 30 Tulsa World Opinion page contained several opinion pieces and reader responses related to the proposed plan. Questions and answers presented by World staff included information related to potential impacts to river habitat, wildlife in general, least terns, eagles and river flows.

In our view, some of the answers were inaccurate. We support an organized plan for the Arkansas River that minimizes impacts to fish and wildlife resources, but the proposed plan is largely conceptual and does not include details about how impacts would be addressed, minimized and mitigated.

For example, the potential impact on the river's habitat and wildlife has not been studied extensively. The only existing fisheries study, conducted by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, indicates that the effects of low water dams (LWD) on fish could be substantial. Building new tern nesting islands (to replace the four to six tern nesting areas that would be flooded or affected) in the created lakes would not be effective, if the terns don't have adequate forage fish to eat. Similar questions exist concerning effects on nesting and foraging bald eagles.

The controlled releases from the Sand Springs LWD would provide water quality benefits by providing low flows during a portion of the time that hydropower generation releases are not being made from Keystone Lake. However, these low flows (400 to 1,000 cubic feet per second)could not be provided during extreme droughts or anytime there is no significant hydropower generation from Keystone for more than three days, according to a draft Tennessee Valley Authority report.

During significant droughts, such as occurred in 2006, no substantial hydropower releases from Keystone may be made for weeks or months on end, resulting in extremely low or no flow in the river channel. We estimate that at least 5,000 cfs is required to make the river appear to be mostly full of water given the current configuration of the river channel; none of the LWDs has the capacity to provide that level of sustained flow.

In addition, to maintain water quality in the impounded pools, especially the pool upstream of the Creek Turnpike bridge, the lakes would need to be drained frequently and for extended periods of time.

This is not to say that most or all of these issues cannot be successfully addressed, or that natural resource benefits would not occur. The proposal does have potential to improve upstream and downstream fish passage, sediment transport and provide low flow releases under average conditions, but the natural resource benefits should not be exaggerated and the potential impacts should not be overlooked.

Trade-offs likely are inevitable. Much work remains to be done.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Editor's note: Jerry J. Brabander is the Field Supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[waterboy]

He must know that the tern population on this stretch of the river is routinely decimated from the spring releases and hydro power releases from the Keystone Dam. I have seen it first hand. Hundreds of baby terns scrambling along a sand bar in Sand Springs vainly trying to escape evening flooding. Even the alleged Least Tern preserve in Zink Lake produces little populations because of the flooding and the rapid growth of vegetation that hides predators. Even so, it has been reported by this same organization that the populations of Least Terns on the Arkansas River has increased, mainly away from where the hydro flooding has so much impact.

I appreciate his attitude. But when the river is in drought conditions it won't matter whether there are low water dams or not. They will temporarily mitigate the impact but the wildlife suffers with or without them.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
But when the river is in drought conditions it won't matter whether there are low water dams or not.

I totally agree.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

The dams will mean more water in the river and that may not be enough some years. But it has to help some most of the time.

The fish guy says this...The proposal does have potential to improve upstream and downstream fish passage, sediment transport and provide low flow releases under average conditions...

That is a very good reason to vote yes. The fact that some times the river will continue to struggle is not enough reason to vote no.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

He must know that the tern population on this stretch of the river is routinely decimated from the spring releases and hydro power releases from the Keystone Dam. I have seen it first hand. Hundreds of baby terns scrambling along a sand bar in Sand Springs vainly trying to escape evening flooding. Even the alleged Least Tern preserve in Zink Lake produces little populations because of the flooding and the rapid growth of vegetation that hides predators. Even so, it has been reported by this same organization that the populations of Least Terns on the Arkansas River has increased, mainly away from where the hydro flooding has so much impact.

I appreciate his attitude. But when the river is in drought conditions it won't matter whether there are low water dams or not. They will temporarily mitigate the impact but the wildlife suffers with or without them.

Nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. All is well in the Emerald City, so says the lollypop guild.

[TheArtist]

Basically a non-story imo. Everyone knows, or should, that we have the occasional extreme drought and extreme floods. The larger gates on these dams can be lowered in both cases and there will either be, no water or lots of water just as it would be without the dams.

However I do fault the promoters of this river plan for not being completely honest when they say there will "always" be flowing water in the river with this plan.

If they did some numbers I am sure they could have come up with something like, puts flowing water in the river during the day 90% of the time versus say, 40%? of the time that we have now.

I suppose that they may be afraid people will not register that correctly. Many times the average person will "tune out" when you start down the road of adding on details like that to everything. Its a sound bite world but that leaves you open to other problems when people do start questioning and asking for specifics. And with the trust level so low with many people...

They are playing the political PR game, but in this new internet age people can be a lot more particular and get a lot more info. Of course when you also have a large set of people that buy into stuff like "Head on, apply directly to the forehead", I can understand there must be some interesting choices, demographics etc. made as to how to promote something lol.

[Conan71]

^^Well Artist that's mainly because in lieu of completing the homework first, it's necessary to sell the package with speculation and a certain amount of hyperbole.  I don't know that anyone is being outright dishonest, so much as there are still a bunch of unknowns which could be answered as "definites" in the next year or two.

I fully understand that there is nothing absolute in a construction project until the last nail is in the wood and the last of the concrete has cured.

I'm really kind of surprised more people don't seemed to be concerned about possible environmental impact.

I just think it's going to be a huge pisser if this tax passes and we find out we really cannot construct two more LWD's.  Honestly, if the enviro questions had been fully answered prior to now, I might well be voting yes tomorrow.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

^^Well Artist that's mainly because in lieu of completing the homework first, it's necessary to sell the package with speculation and a certain amount of hyperbole.  I don't know that anyone is being outright dishonest, so much as there are still a bunch of unknowns which could be answered as "definites" in the next year or two.

I fully understand that there is nothing absolute in a construction project until the last nail is in the wood and the last of the concrete has cured.

I'm really kind of surprised more people don't seemed to be concerned about possible environmental impact.

I just think it's going to be a huge pisser if this tax passes and we find out we really cannot construct two more LWD's.  Honestly, if the enviro questions had been fully answered prior to now, I might well be voting yes tomorrow.

I am reminded of how many times in my life coffee has gone from being healthy, to unhealthy, from elixir to intoxicant. I love science but it changes with each new crop of phd's. But the coffee stays the same.

We could wait forever for definitive answers on environmental issues. Frankly, not too many organizations want to put their stamp of approval on anything after Katrina, Florida wetlands and Missouri river mistakes. But they will. There aren't too many concerns with this plan other than fish spawning and those will be met.

There is a lot of ignorance, both accidental and purposeful, about river issues. If you read his remarks, which I think were meant to be helpful to the river development effort, you will see wiggle room.

The Terns, like I noted, is a perfect example. This:"building new tern nesting islands to replace the 4-6 tern nesting areas that would be flooded or affected in the created lakes would not be effective, if the terns don't have adquate forage fish to eat."

Lets hope the replacements would not be as effective as the current 4-6 areas, because they are currently, INEFFECTIVE. Those areas hydro-flood routinely during the nesting season and very few terns survive. Those that do have to escape the predators in the vegetation the floods encourage. Whether there are fish or not to feed on would be irrelevant if they can't reproduce.

So currently they can't survive in this area, and the published numbers prove that, but if we build them protected bars, they MIGHT not be able to survive. Clear choice to me.

Another example of well meaning ignorance came as a question to me during a recent forum I participated in. An incensed lady asked me if I felt bad for having used an airboat to scare pelicans and damage the environment of the river. Well, no, seeing as the people who count the tern population and attempt to clear brush for them, use airboats. Considering that they have no prop in the water to destroy fish habitats, river otters, and turtles who get in their way. And considering that the Pelicans often never even moved when I came by after they realized I was not a predator. What looks to be damaging is in fact the most environmentally safe.

[Conan71]

Waterboy,

Is there not another natural habitat the Least Terns could be re-situated at away from the Arkansas River?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Waterboy,

Is there not another natural habitat the Least Terns could be re-situated at away from the Arkansas River?

I don't know about re-situating them away from the Arkansas, but I did just read that they are all over the great salt plains area in North Central OK, along with another endangered species, the Snow Plover. There is a salty lake up there. Statewide, the Least Tern is holding its own. They insist on nesting in sand bars or other barren landscapes that don't have vegetation that their predators hide in. They are a lovely little bird that hovers, then "dive bombs" into the river for their food.

[RecycleMichael]

You don't actually move the Least Terns, they find a new home as needed. The didn't adopt that area until Zink lake was built. They will set up nests on almost any sand bar in the river.

The keys are to have a fairly dry place to lay eggs that can't be reached by their predators and a shallow pool of water for them to capture small fish.

They will find whatever is built for them that fits those descriptions. They breed in late April and babies are born by late June. High flows in the Arkansas River during May and June can cause problems.

If there is a winner that will benefit by the low water dams, it is the Least Tern.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

You don't actually move the Least Terns, they find a new home as needed. The didn't adopt that area until Zink lake was built. They will set up nests on almost any sand bar in the river.

The keys are to have a fairly dry place to lay eggs that can't be reached by their predators and a shallow pool of water for them to capture small fish.

They will find whatever is built for them that fits those descriptions. They breed in late April and babies are born by late June. High flows in the Arkansas River during May and June can cause problems.

If there is a winner that will benefit by the low water dams, it is the Least Tern.

Just destroy their habitat they'll find somewhere else to live, oh, and the Sinclair Refinery Expansion will be great for our environment.[sarcasm off]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

You don't actually move the Least Terns, they find a new home as needed. The didn't adopt that area until Zink lake was built. They will set up nests on almost any sand bar in the river.

The keys are to have a fairly dry place to lay eggs that can't be reached by their predators and a shallow pool of water for them to capture small fish.

They will find whatever is built for them that fits those descriptions. They breed in late April and babies are born by late June. High flows in the Arkansas River during May and June can cause problems.

If there is a winner that will benefit by the low water dams, it is the Least Tern.

Just destroy their habitat they'll find somewhere else to live, oh, and the Sinclair Refinery Expansion will be great for our environment.[sarcasm off]

As an environmentalist, AA ...you're a bust. Currently their habitat is destroyed, daily.

[Tiny]

what they're saying about the least tern is that you can't just build an island and hope they'll use it ... the least turn feeds on minnows and stuff that are provided for them by the prarie river habitat ... change that into a lake and their food most likely evaporates ... avarage flows would be great for the fish but when you get low flows and kill all the fish in there from there being only sewage pumped into the furthest downstream lake then all the fish die and then we go back to average flow the fish are already dead ... no amount of flow is going to help those fish that died during low flow periods.

the least terns feed in areas that have water no more than about 4" deep ... when you change that to 4 feet deep the minnows aren't going to be nearly as easy for them to get where they could catch their food easily in the riffles going over the sandbars the minnows won't be there or catchable ... that's why the least terns make their nests in areas where the water is shallow so they can provide lots of food for their offspring and themselves ... if they liked it where there was more water they'd nest on the lake's sandbars and beaches.

tulsa county ads have lied to the public over and over again just to get this pushed through so there's got to be some red flags come up for some of you through that ... they said that about road improvements on the latest ad and there are no road improvements such as paving and stuff like that ... they're trying to make people think there is something in this plan that isn't there when the only thing that is in the plan is stuff like planting trees on the roadsides and stuff like that. to me that's a bold faced lie.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Tiny

what they're saying about the least tern is that you can't just build an island and hope they'll use it ... the least turn feeds on minnows and stuff that are provided for them by the prarie river habitat ... change that into a lake and their food most likely evaporates ... avarage flows would be great for the fish but when you get low flows and kill all the fish in there from there being only sewage pumped into the furthest downstream lake then all the fish die and then we go back to average flow the fish are already dead ... no amount of flow is going to help those fish that died during low flow periods.

the least terns feed in areas that have water no more than about 4" deep ... when you change that to 4 feet deep the minnows aren't going to be nearly as easy for them to get where they could catch their food easily in the riffles going over the sandbars the minnows won't be there or catchable ... that's why the least terns make their nests in areas where the water is shallow so they can provide lots of food for their offspring and themselves ... if they liked it where there was more water they'd nest on the lake's sandbars and beaches.

tulsa county ads have lied to the public over and over again just to get this pushed through so there's got to be some red flags come up for some of you through that ... they said that about road improvements on the latest ad and there are no road improvements such as paving and stuff like that ... they're trying to make people think there is something in this plan that isn't there when the only thing that is in the plan is stuff like planting trees on the roadsides and stuff like that. to me that's a bold faced lie.

You're ignoring the basic thrust of the Tern argument. Not surprising. Whenever those contradicting arguments to your concerns are raised, they are routinely ignored. Most of the tern nests along this stretch of river are destroyed each spring by the seasonal releases and the hydro releases. That is not me saying that, though I have seen it personally. That has been published in the paper several times over the last few years. The tern counts (US Fish and Wildlife?) in this area prove that to be true.

You keep saying that sewage pumped into the river is killing fish. Really?

First, the treated sewage released into the river is cleaner than the river! It is rated for Primary Contact! And its oxygenated. But you prefer to lead people to believe it is raw sewage. Sounds like a bold faced lie.

Secondly, you assert that the sewage is killing the fish. No it is not. Watch the birds that feed on fish. They tell you where the fish are. The real pollutants pumped into the river are near storm sewers. That is where the fish gather and that is where the predator birds gather. You can see it yourself if you look over the 11th or 21st street bridges on the East side at low water periods and watch schools of fish hanging around. They seem to like that stuff.

Your real attempt is to plant the seeds of doubt to further your own interests. We all tend to believe the worst and you are exploiting that tendency. To me that's worse than a bold faced lie.

[Conan71]

Waterboy, the island(s) directly east of Westport were never completely submerged this summer were they?