A Critical Look at the Proposed Arkansas River Infrastructure Development

[Vision 2025]

So Zink water quality and the current white water features are/were neither acceptable nor functioning as intended.  

No, that is not what I said.

Zink has no regulatory documented water quality issues but no doubt there is the potential for low dissolved oxygen levels (especially at night) in hot weather/(with the present) low flow conditions.   With the SS facility in place the downstream water quality will be better and no doubt upping the low flow will increase water quality in Zink. 

Other than a few random boulders, there is no current white water feature at Zink, so I'm not understanding that part of your comment.  Should the proposed white water facilities be constructed at Zink without flow augmentation they will function but at nowhere near up to the designs potential in terms of flexibility and duration of flows especially at the standing (surf) wave.

Something to remember is that, as I recall, Zink was designed at a time when there was low flow re-regulation at SS.

[PonderInc]

I went to last night's river forum at OU Tulsa and there were several Fish and Wildlife guys there (both state and US).  The US Fish and Wildlife department is responsible for species that cross state boundaries (including migratory birds), and the state guys focus on the species / habitats within state boundaries.

There were probably 6 guys from these departments, and none were in support of adding dams to the river.

I hesitate to quote them, for fear of getting the details wrong, but they had a lot of concerns, and they were clearly knowledgeable. 

One simple fact: the Corps is currently restoring the nesting islands approximately twice / year.  The Dam Plan calls for restoration once every two years.  That certainly makes you wonder what other details might be glossed over.

I spoke to several of the F&W guys as we were walking out.  They said that whenever they've raised concerns about this project, they been told "that's not what the engineers said." 

Perhaps more biologists should be consulted.

It gives me pause.  I want to follow up and gather additional information.

They suggested that fixing Zink dam wouldn't create any new problems, and it would be safer for humans.  But they were seriously concerned about inflicting any more man-made "improvements" on the river.

[AquaMan]

It is a mistake to argue engineering or wildlife with what the RPA director used to call "people with dogs in this race". Instead focus on the bigger deception that this group of dams economically offers a good return on investment outside of the dogs in the race. Tulsa and Sand Springs dogs are being shot dead out of the gates.

[cannon_fodder]

Out of curiosity - is anyone here (or elsewhere) arguing for the removal of Zink dam?

Because, as I understand it, absent massive repairs or replacement... That's the only option.

I'm also assuming no one wants to remove Keystone to achieve an actual "natural" river.

[AquaMan]

I'm I in favor of repairs or renovation of existing Zink dam. It worked fine til it started leaking  The re-reg dam at Sands Springs didn't last long. The Keystone was not supposed to last this long.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

The Keystone was not supposed to last this long.

So you are saying that Keystone Dam was not meant to be a permanent structure? Can you provide a source for this? I can't seem to find any info in the history of the dam that says it was not meant to be a permanent part of the flood control plan developed in the early 50's.

[patric]

Perhaps more biologists should be consulted.

...and maybe add Scotobiology to the mix. 
We take it for granted the role nature's cycles play in plants, animals and people, but who gives any thought to how bird migrations, for example, are affected by a casino's light show on the river, or the incursion of billboard up-lighting along roadways that had been wetlands?

[AquaMan]

Permanent? Its mostly earthen, unlike Hoover dam. My research was done in early 2001 at city/county library. I''ve slept since then. They knew it would silt up and need replaced with a new structure within fifty years.  A few years ago the corps decided it was good for another 100. Why not just eliminate all doubt and say "as long as the rivers run....". Or as long as casinos rule?
There were good reasons that Keystone was one of the last major dams to be built. Ecological concerns. Cost of construction. Ongoing maintenance and operational costs were a few. In most cases there are more economical, less damaging solutions.
You are being asked to invest with dubious claims of economic return.

[PonderInc]

I'm in favor of improving Zink Dam. The permit has already been approved, it would prevent more folks from drowning in the giant vortex, and it would make things better, not worse. It will also be pretty to have water near the Gathering Place (which desperately needs a real name, not a working title).  If it can improve the little white water kayaking area, too, then yea for us.

Not sure I can support the other dams. Save the money and spend it on transit. Transit = jobs and opportunity and economic development. We can prove this with actual evidence. Wet river, not so much.

[dsjeffries]

One simple fact: the Corps is currently restoring the nesting islands approximately twice / year.  The Dam Plan calls for restoration once every two years.  That certainly makes you wonder what other details might be glossed over.

The difference here is that the existing islands are not protected, and the proposal calls for building new, more permanent islands of 2-5 acres each on the downstream sides of the dams that don't require as much maintenance. I'm not a biologist or engineer, but it seems like that would explain the difference in restoration timelines.

From the Arkansas River Low Water Dam Schematic Design Report, p.25:

Least tern habitat can be more reasonably projected for the three new dams because of consultations during the 2009 PPMP, the Zink Section 404 permitting process, and recent experience on the Section 404 permit for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the resulting requirements. Based on this experience, each of the three new dams will also include the construction of a new island that provides 2 acres of new least tern habitat above the elevation of the SWPA power generation flow of 12,000 cfs. The islands will be constructed based upon the design criteria presented in the least tern island design document in 2003 by the Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering Department, Oklahoma State University. At lower non-generating flows of 1,000 cfs and corresponding lower water levels, the islands will be approximately 5 acres in size.
Construction of these islands are included in the project cost estimates and periodic sand replenishment that will be required to maintain the islands for the life of the project.

p.26:

The open water resource that will result from the creation of the lake pools will provide stable habitat for fish, waterfowl, wading birds, amphibians, and insects; will provide more stable hydrology for riparian vegetation; and will have a greater ecological function value than the existing intermittently inundated riverine sand bars.

[SXSW]

I'm in favor of improving Zink Dam. The permit has already been approved, it would prevent more folks from drowning in the giant vortex, and it would make things better, not worse. It will also be pretty to have water near the Gathering Place (which desperately needs a real name, not a working title).  If it can improve the little white water kayaking area, too, then yea for us.

Not sure I can support the other dams. Save the money and spend it on transit. Transit = jobs and opportunity and economic development. We can prove this with actual evidence. Wet river, not so much.

The Sand Springs dam would help maintain the flow of water to not only Zink Dam but also the entire river. 

[AquaMan]

The Sands Springs dam is only anticipated to do that. The previous one had little effect. Yet if it does provide the entire river with water it is by flooding wetlands and beautiful upstream shallows to merely provide a few inches of cover sand for Jenks and the casino. I have spent much time on watercraft between the keystone dam and Tulsa. A poor tradeoff and little if any economic gain for Tulsa and SS.

[cannon_fodder]

My neighbor worked and retired from the Corps of Engineers, he helped with Keystone and has neat stories about filing it up and little screw ups that had to be fixed, etc. Just the other day we were talking about the rapid release and flooding that was going on and he was bragging that they were all working "just like they should" even after many years and minimal repairs/improvements. We then went on to discuss the new dam proposals, which he was very concerned with regarding flooding - but admitted he wasn't familiar with the plans (he was also mad that the Creeks added bank back into the river, saying no one else would have been granted that permit because it "chokes off" the river...).

Anyway, at one point he told me that the dam was built on a fifty year spec. The material that makes up the pool itself (sandstone mostly for Keystone), the earthen embankment, the concrete and rebar of the dam, the mechanical components, the silt, etc. all come into play. He said that wasn't his area (he did hydrology, which also got us talking about Crow creek!), but he said when he retired from the Corps there was no real plan or funding sources for starting to replace the WPA dams that went up in the 1930s - so he doubted there was any real plan to replace any other dams. We both joked that our dams are only marginally better off than our water mains, which are reported bursting as part of regular traffic reports.

Keystone turned 50 last November.  It cost $123mil in 1964 dollars, it would cost well over $1 BILLION to replace it today. We don't invest in infrastructure like that anymore, other than highways...
http://mannfordreporter.com/dam-time-keystone-dam-now-open/

I say all of this not to suggest that the Corp is wrong and that Keystone is dangerous, but to point out infrastructure wears out. Zink is worn out after 35 years (and has required multiple repairs for $1mil plus). The city has no fund for regular maintenance repairs on an ongoing basis as it stands. I'm concerned that when Jenk's shiny new dam is no longer shiny and new, I get to pay for it again. The price tag is a down payment, there is maintenance and repair to contend with. There is the fact that rarely is a $250mil+ public project done on budget. I'm just concerned all around (and convinced that the "economic" argument is junk).

</ramble>

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Okay, so to say I'm suprised and at the same time not suprised, as this seems to be the way a lot of things were built and not just in Oklahoma. Build it to last 50 years by the lowest bidder, and then let someone else worry about what to do fifty years later when it needs to be repaired or replaced. Hmmm, sounds like the OTA in some ways.

[Conan71]

Okay, so to say I'm suprised and at the same time not suprised, as this seems to be the way a lot of things were built and not just in Oklahoma. Build it to last 50 years by the lowest bidder, and then let someone else worry about what to do fifty years later when it needs to be repaired or replaced. Hmmm, sounds like the OTA in some ways.

Seems to be a common thread in engineered solutions.  I can’t tell you how many times we have looked at a seemingly impossible boiler replacement in a basement 30 feet down with 16” thick walls or in a penthouse 20 stories up.  The question always comes up: “What the hell were those engineers thinking building a building around the boiler room?” 

It was easy placement and by the time the lifespan of the boiler was over that engineer would be long retired.  I’ve seen boilers with a 40 year life expectancy reduced to junk in five years.  I’ve also seen boilers with a 20-30 year expectancy approaching 90 years old.  There are still a few around Tulsa providing nice toasty heat every winter. 

IOW- the dams may have had a 50 year life expectancy, but what all did they not know about materials and construction in the early 1960’s which has proven much more durable beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

There again, we do seem to learn new things with every decade that goes by.