Some minor movement on the low water dams

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

The last vote said $154M for the low water dams, shoreline modification, zink dam modification, and the channeling of the river south of the zink dam.

That amount also included "low water dam, lake and river studies".

More precisely, the portion allocated to the two new low water dams (Sand Spring and Jenks), their associated pedestrian bridges and lakes, AND "low water dam, lake and river studies" totaled $49.4 million

[Lorax]

Why are you folks so adamant in destroying the river ?  In fact, it is not barren most of the year.  

Thousands of fish live there, from small minnows to giant spoonbill catfish.  Foxes burrow in the banks.  Eagles visit the shores.  Birds of several species are dependant upon the ebb and flow.  On the other hand, Zink Lake is barren.  Why not embrace and enhance what the river is now?  Why not clean it up now?  You ever been down to the rip rap and seen the trash?    That's the real disgrace.    Despite the fact that it's pretty much a dumping ground now, at least is holds on to the vestiges of a natural setting.  But dams will destroy even that.    Hundreds of thousands of creatures will be killed. Something unique will be lost and it will never, ever exist again.  

[swake]

We can go back and argue all this again, but, suffice it to say the current river is in no way natural.

The flows are wildly too irregular and weak, there's the pollution of nearly a million people along the river in the Tulsa area, the too defined riverbanks, the lack of regular flooding.

That's just a start.

[Lorax]

Swake, by that reasoning, ever sick person that walked into a hospital should have an amputation.

You imply it's OK to destroy what is left of the river because it is sick.  Wouldn't it be much better to fix what is broken and save it?  

Fact remains, dams will displace and destroy a diverse population of creatures and a unique system which cannot be replaced will be lost.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Lorax

Swake, by that reasoning, ever sick person that walked into a hospital should have an amputation.

You imply it's OK to destroy what is left of the river because it is sick.  Wouldn't it be much better to fix what is broken and save it?  

Fact remains, dams will displace and destroy a diverse population of creatures and a unique system which cannot be replaced will be lost.

Go do a little research on the living river concept and cascade dams and get back with us.

Ok?

[Renaissance]

Shhhhhh....

Got a nice thread going here.

don't. feed. the. you know what.

[8D]

[Lorax]

Well, already did review those concepts last round on this topic.  

And I cannot dispute that there are many benefits nor that such measures are not attractive. Conversely, the Arkansas already is a living river, so isn't that concept redundant?

And just like last time this topic was so hot, and has been discussed before, there are no guarantees such measures will take place.  Nor is it proven these measures will preserve the unique nature of the system. I have read through the studies pointed to last time, too. In one word: Inconclusive.  

Yet, and as shown, and as research confirms, BIO 101-- loss of habitat leads to loss of biodiversity.  No matter what the counter measures, dams will lead to loss of habitat.  

Something unique, which is home, and sometimes REQUIRED, for many diverse creatures will never exist again.

[cannon_fodder]

The Lorax speaks for the trees, not the river!  Goofy poster.  But seriously, if you visited this issue in the previous threads - why are you posting under a new name?

That said:

1) Why is the current man-made river paradigm better than the proposed modifications?  Certainly you are not arguing the river is natural in it's current state.

2) Thousands of creatures will due, but won't thousands more get new homes?  There will be some losers, but probably more winners that losers (no one wins if a person with the flu gets an amputation).

I can not argue that it is not a loss of habitat.  But you can not argue that it is not habitat creation.  Whose to say which is better, since it is already modified beyond any vestige of a natural state?

Arguing to keep the Arkansas natural is like arguing to keep Woodland Hills non-commercial.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080115_1_A9_spanc87803

quote:
Commission starts paperwork for dams

by: KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
1/15/2008  12:00 AM

The County Commission voted unanimously Monday to begin accepting requests for qualifications for engineering and design work for low-water dams in Sand Springs and Jenks and for modifications to Zink Dam in Tulsa.

Kirby Crowe of Program Management Group, which administers Vision 2025 programs for the county, said he expects to recommend a firm to the commission by April or May.

Firms that submit requests for qualifications are not re quired to include a fee for their services, Crowe said.

The fee will be negotiated once the firm is selected, he said.

The commissioners' action comes more than three months after county residents rejected a $282 million river-development proposal. The plan would have been funded by increasing the county sales tax 0.4 percent for seven years.

A group of local leaders has been meeting since the Oct. 9 vote to discuss river development options.

The commissioners voted in December to accept the group's recommendation to proceed with the $9.5 million in river projects approved by voters in the Vision 2025 package.

Crowe estimated that the design and engineering work could take 18 months to two years to complete.

The $23 billion federal Water Resources Development Act, which Congress passed in November, authorizes $50 million for Arkansas River development projects. That includes funds that could be used for ecosystem restoration, recreation and flood damage-reduction projects.

County commissioners will continue to look for funds to build the dams.

Is it not unusual to not ask firms to submit their fee before being selected?

In Oklahoma and various other states it is a violation of the rules for Registered Professional Engineers to submit fees as part of the basis for selection on projects.

This is a qualifications based selection process.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The Lorax speaks for the trees, not the river!  Goofy poster.  But seriously, if you visited this issue in the previous threads - why are you posting under a new name?

That said:

1) Why is the current man-made river paradigm better than the proposed modifications?  Certainly you are not arguing the river is natural in it's current state.

2) Thousands of creatures will due, but won't thousands more get new homes?  There will be some losers, but probably more winners that losers (no one wins if a person with the flu gets an amputation).

I can not argue that it is not a loss of habitat.  But you can not argue that it is not habitat creation.  Whose to say which is better, since it is already modified beyond any vestige of a natural state?

Arguing to keep the Arkansas natural is like arguing to keep Woodland Hills non-commercial.

I feel obligated to post since having expressed similar viewpoints in the past someone may think I am the Lorax.

Go easy on his views. They are being expressed all over the country. Just read yesterday where the Klamath river dams will probably be dismantled to put that river back to its natural (yet somewhat directed) state. The power generating company on the river is co-operating in the effort as long as ratepayers are not penalized. The two concepts of natural and controlled are not mutually exclusive. This river still has natural rhythms that the corps expressly desires that maintain wildlife and natural actions.

Building the two dams proposed does not mean that the living river concept below Zink will be done also. That rather changes my view. Their purposes seem hard to justify except for nearby retail center development. However, the city/county operates without my approval! If the corps signs off, the congress gives the money and the tree huggers can be assuaged, then any attention towards the river is good. But number one on any list should be cleaning up the 100 years of junk left there including dredging equipment, debris, abandoned pipe lines and making provision for keeping it clear of trash.

[Lorax]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The Lorax speaks for the trees, not the river!  Goofy poster.  But seriously, if you visited this issue in the previous threads - why are you posting under a new name?

[] Mostly just read.  Seldom post.

quote:
That said:

1) Why is the current man-made river paradigm better than the proposed modifications?  Certainly you are not arguing the river is natural in it's current state.

In appearance, it resembles the Cimarron where it runs fairly unimpeded in Western Oklahoma.  Additionally, based on the indicator species, the river is close to a natural state.  A specialist who is up to date on classification would have to definitely answer as to what degree. I work in a differnt field now.

quote:
2) Thousands of creatures will due, but won't thousands more get new homes?  There will be some losers, but probably more winners that losers (no one wins if a person with the flu gets an amputation).

I can not argue that it is not a loss of habitat.  But you can not argue that it is not habitat creation.  Whose to say which is better, since it is already modified beyond any vestige of a natural state?

Arguing to keep the Arkansas natural is like arguing to keep Woodland Hills non-commercial.

I'd argue that it is very close to natural.  The imtermittant flow, while not natural is similar to what seasonal flows would be without Keystone.  It's only the frequency that is different.

Hopefully, my concerns are unfounded.  I hope I'm completely wrong.

[Vision 2025]

Lorax,

So, as I understand your statment you consider the nearly seasonal flows extremes which happen on virtually a daily basis to be a normal healthy flow regime?

[Lorax]

Vision 2025
I don't know what would be a healthy flow regime. Can only speak in the general sense that intermittent flows are natural and seasonal.  

I have 2 years experience in environmental consulting and a degree in a related field.  It was 26 years ago.  

And, yes, I was suggesting that dam relases equate to natural cycles in some measure. And, yes, it is an overstatemnt because I have no proof in this specific case, only theory.

Regarding flow: It is not necessarily one factor, such a flow rates or such as frequency or volume, that defines a biota. There are many variables.  Indicator species are given a very high weight. I believe there are proposed measures for minimal and seasonal flow in some of the COE reports that are mentioned specifically for preservation of species.

If there were no concerns about loss of habitat and loss of diversity along the whole system, then there would be no need for restorative and conservation practices (such as lowering gates, building islands). It's kind of like paving over a jungle to put up a zoo.

Until proven otherwise, it's still my thesis that the river as it exists, is close to a natural prairie river and that dams will destroy that nature. Another chunk will be removed from the few prairie river systems left in the US.  My thesis is based on two things.  1. Its appearance and behavior and similarity in general to other systems. 2. The type of plants and animals which are dependant upon number 1 and types of and diversity of species, which are similar to other prairie rivers.  

Hopefully, I am wrong.   Maybe the details of the studies underway will show the river to nothing more than a ditch.  The jury is still out.  If the Phase III report ever come about and shows my statements to be empty that would be the best report of all.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Lorax

Until proven otherwise, it's still my thesis that the river as it exists, is close to a natural prairie river and that dams will destroy that nature.

Is the Arkansas river still considered a "no secondary contact" river?

Is the coliform count still too high to allow contact?

Have we remediated the mercury and lead levels yet? (are we still killing swans?)

Just curious before I go for a swim.

This is the USGS's opinion:

The Arkansas River is subject to many types of pollution downstream from the Oklahoma-Kansas State line, and its inferior quality along with an erratic flow pattern has caused it to be largely abandoned as a source of municipal and industrial water supply.  In general, the river water increases in chemical concentration downstream from the Oklahoma-Kansas State line to Tulsa, due mainly to tributary inflow from the Salt Fork Arkansas River and the Cimarron River, both streams being sources of large amounts of both natural and artificial pollution.  An increase in chemical concentration is noted due to tributary inflow from the Canadian River which is largely artificial pollution. A steady decrease in concentration is then noted as the river progresses through Arkansas to the Mississippi River, as all major tributaries below the Canadian River have a dilution effect upon the chemical concentration of the Arkansas River water.

[Lorax]

Spoonbill,
Thanks for the info--thats interesting and very sad.  No doubt, the Arkansas is very stressed.

Folk, thanks for the discussion.

In the Dr Suess book, the Lorax said his piece and left.

Think this Lorax will do the same and just go back to reading.  Should be interesting to see what what evolves.