A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 08, 2021, 05:54:47 am
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Zink Dam Rehabilitation Project  (Read 6755 times)
Vision 2025
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 824


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2020, 10:56:00 am »

The City hoasted a good Ground Breaking Ceremony this morning.
Logged

Vision 2025 Program Director - know the facts, www.Vision2025.info
Tulsan
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2020, 12:15:27 pm »

Very cool.

Any word on the South Tulsa dam?
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4281


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2020, 02:53:14 pm »

The City hoasted a good Ground Breaking Ceremony this morning.

Great to see this finally happening!  Is the pedestrian bridge still planning to start in November so work can be coordinated between both projects?  Assuming they will have some coffer dams and other things that they'll do during the drier months.  It will be a mess for a couple years but really worth it in the end.
Logged

 
smitteebc
Tourist

Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2020, 03:20:10 pm »

Very cool.

Any word on the South Tulsa dam?

I'm curious about this as well. Haven't been hearing as much on the South Tulsa Dam
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4281


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2020, 08:24:29 pm »

I'm curious about this as well. Haven't been hearing as much on the South Tulsa Dam

I think the key to that will be how much funding the Creek Nation provides as they will be one of the biggest beneficiaries.  I imagine they would want it looking more like this all year so they can run ferry boats between the casino/hotel and Riverwalk Crossing (which they own).

Logged

 
LandArchPoke
Civic Leader
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 459



« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2020, 02:42:35 pm »

I'm curious about this as well. Haven't been hearing as much on the South Tulsa Dam

I believe the money from the last Vision will only pay for the design/engineering of the south Tulsa dam and that they will be able to get approval from the corps to build it. Essentially to have it shovel ready. But, in order to build this it required the Creek Nation to pay for the actual construction costs.

I don't think this is at the top of their list at the moment. They've been in the process of acquiring more land around the casino and I've seen rendering of concepts for the land across Riverside. I think that's more of a priority for them. I think they are wanting to build some sort of entertainment complex/retail center there, something to help make the casino more of a destination and compete better with the Hard Rock and some of the southern casino's in Durant/Thackerville that are dominating with Texas visitors.
Logged
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7897



« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2020, 03:15:13 pm »

I believe the money from the last Vision will only pay for the design/engineering of the south Tulsa dam and that they will be able to get approval from the corps to build it. Essentially to have it shovel ready. But, in order to build this it required the Creek Nation to pay for the actual construction costs.

I don't think this is at the top of their list at the moment. They've been in the process of acquiring more land around the casino and I've seen rendering of concepts for the land across Riverside. I think that's more of a priority for them. I think they are wanting to build some sort of entertainment complex/retail center there, something to help make the casino more of a destination and compete better with the Hard Rock and some of the southern casino's in Durant/Thackerville that are dominating with Texas visitors.

No, the money is there for the dam, mostly. The last I heard the dam was projected for construction in the 2025 time frame. Part of the money came from the Tulsa vote, Jenks also voted for part and the balance of needed money, $25 million, is to come from The Creek Nation. The problem is that $25 million was never locked down and was a loose deal made with a Creek Administration a couple of Chiefs ago. This doesn't mean the Nation won't come up with the money when it is time, it's just that they have never fully committed to it and the people that agreed in principle are long gone.
Logged
LandArchPoke
Civic Leader
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 459



« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2020, 12:55:19 pm »

No, the money is there for the dam, mostly. The last I heard the dam was projected for construction in the 2025 time frame. Part of the money came from the Tulsa vote, Jenks also voted for part and the balance of needed money, $25 million, is to come from The Creek Nation. The problem is that $25 million was never locked down and was a loose deal made with a Creek Administration a couple of Chiefs ago. This doesn't mean the Nation won't come up with the money when it is time, it's just that they have never fully committed to it and the people that agreed in principle are long gone.

Gotcha, thanks. I thought the Creek Nation was going to be responsible for more than that. It still will come down to wether they can get the missing piece to fund the actual construction. They have enough to get it to ground breaking, but the question will be do they get the money from the Creek Nation when the time comes - they seem to have their focus on other things. To get it built there might have to be another funding source to come up with that $25 million. Maybe they can get it passed through a bond from the State given they've dump what $100 million or so into the First Americans Museum. Would be nice to see them return the favor a bit to Tulsa - not like that's likely to happen either.
Logged
Vision 2025
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 824


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2020, 09:31:11 am »

I'm curious about this as well. Haven't been hearing as much on the South Tulsa Dam
The 404 Permit has been approved.
Logged

Vision 2025 Program Director - know the facts, www.Vision2025.info
Vision 2025
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 824


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2020, 10:06:32 am »

Gotcha, thanks. I thought the Creek Nation was going to be responsible for more than that. It still will come down to wether they can get the missing piece to fund the actual construction. They have enough to get it to ground breaking, but the question will be do they get the money from the Creek Nation when the time comes - they seem to have their focus on other things. To get it built there might have to be another funding source to come up with that $25 million. Maybe they can get it passed through a bond from the State given they've dump what $100 million or so into the First Americans Museum. Would be nice to see them return the favor a bit to Tulsa - not like that's likely to happen either.
The third leg of the funding was intended to be a Maintenance Endowment and was/is identified as coming from other sources or entities.
Logged

Vision 2025 Program Director - know the facts, www.Vision2025.info
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1266



« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2020, 01:18:33 pm »

I'm curious about the backlash/opposition to this and the response from the City.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/waterway-warriors-zink-dam-objectors-fight-for-a-natural-arkansas-river/article_d35d0e26-aeb1-5bee-8bcc-7a0ee762071b.html

https://docdro.id/dw3G88Y

It seems like there's a number of questions about the effects of the dam (washing buried pollutants out from ground below refineries), destroying endangered species habitats, and the claim that it wouldn't even necessarily help create a stable "lake", it'll just prop up the water a bit higher when there are releases, but will still look dry and empty as we're used to during low/moderate flow times. It sounds like all 3 dams might be needed to get the advertised "lake" sold to voters.


Then I'm highly skeptical they'll even meet the new revised budget. The things in Vision 2025 have all been a combination of disappointing and far over budget (Gilcrease "expansion"/i.e. smaller complete new build; BMX HQ far over budget and demolished baseball stadium for no reason; pedestrian bridge almost double allotted cost estimate).
Logged
rebound
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2020, 09:13:53 pm »

I'm curious about the backlash/opposition to this and the response from the City.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/waterway-warriors-zink-dam-objectors-fight-for-a-natural-arkansas-river/article_d35d0e26-aeb1-5bee-8bcc-7a0ee762071b.html

https://docdro.id/dw3G88Y

It seems like there's a number of questions about the effects of the dam (washing buried pollutants out from ground below refineries), destroying endangered species habitats, and the claim that it wouldn't even necessarily help create a stable "lake", it'll just prop up the water a bit higher when there are releases, but will still look dry and empty as we're used to during low/moderate flow times. It sounds like all 3 dams might be needed to get the advertised "lake" sold to voters.


Then I'm highly skeptical they'll even meet the new revised budget. The things in Vision 2025 have all been a combination of disappointing and far over budget (Gilcrease "expansion"/i.e. smaller complete new build; BMX HQ far over budget and demolished baseball stadium for no reason; pedestrian bridge almost double allotted cost estimate).

I know several of these "anti"fishermen folk.  I've tried to have logical discussions with them, to no avail.  I've addressed every one of their objections, again, without swaying any of their minds.   I could go into each issue, but generally their overall argument is "it costs too much, and we don't like it".  Which is fine, but don't then wrap a series of unfounded and/or illogical arguments around the topic.    Happy to have a side-bar discussion, if anyone want to.
Logged

 
Vision 2025
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 824


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2020, 12:24:18 pm »

I'm curious about the backlash/opposition to this and the response from the City.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/waterway-warriors-zink-dam-objectors-fight-for-a-natural-arkansas-river/article_d35d0e26-aeb1-5bee-8bcc-7a0ee762071b.html

https://docdro.id/dw3G88Y

It seems like there's a number of questions about the effects of the dam (washing buried pollutants out from ground below refineries), destroying endangered species habitats, and the claim that it wouldn't even necessarily help create a stable "lake", it'll just prop up the water a bit higher when there are releases, but will still look dry and empty as we're used to during low/moderate flow times. It sounds like all 3 dams might be needed to get the advertised "lake" sold to voters.

All of these concerns were vetted during the 404 Permit Review which included an extended public and agency comment periods.  The only endangered species is the Tern and the project includes the construction and maintenance of of a significant nesting island well downstream of the dam that is one of the very first items to be constructed.

With respect to the refinery, Holly has been at the table during the project design and has a known issue and a project to specifically address the bank seepage.

The additional depth provides for both a larger/deeper pool and provides some stored water for release down the recreationally flume between hydro releases.   The long term solution to low flow is the proposed upstream dam that the Corps of Engineers is presently beginning the Plans Phase for (there is a confirmed "Federal Interest" in this Project and funding was included in WRDA 2007) as an "Eco System Restoration Project" to store and release low flows between hydro cycles as was originally intended in the authorization of Keystone Dam.  Other than that it would require an Act of Congress (with significant re-occurring funding) to offset the value of the power generation in order to modify the water rights in Keystone to include an environmental and/or ascetic release which the Corps has studied extensively and found not to be a practical solution.    
« Last Edit: August 18, 2020, 12:29:23 pm by Vision 2025 » Logged

Vision 2025 Program Director - know the facts, www.Vision2025.info
Vision 2025
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 824


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2020, 12:33:49 pm »

I'm curious about the backlash/opposition to this and the response from the City.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/waterway-warriors-zink-dam-objectors-fight-for-a-natural-arkansas-river/article_d35d0e26-aeb1-5bee-8bcc-7a0ee762071b.html

https://docdro.id/dw3G88Y

Then I'm highly skeptical they'll even meet the new revised budget. The things in Vision 2025 have all been a combination of disappointing and far over budget (Gilcrease "expansion"/i.e. smaller complete new build; BMX HQ far over budget and demolished baseball stadium for no reason; pedestrian bridge almost double allotted cost estimate).
  Point of order, those are "Vision Tulsa", not Vision 2025 projects which are totally separate and now mostly completed.
Logged

Vision 2025 Program Director - know the facts, www.Vision2025.info
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1266



« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2020, 02:57:02 pm »

All of these concerns were vetted during the 404 Permit Review which included an extended public and agency comment periods.  The only endangered species is the Tern and the project includes the construction and maintenance of of a significant nesting island well downstream of the dam that is one of the very first items to be constructed.

With respect to the refinery, Holly has been at the table during the project design and has a known issue and a project to specifically address the bank seepage.

The additional depth provides for both a larger/deeper pool and provides some stored water for release down the recreationally flume between hydro releases.   The long term solution to low flow is the proposed upstream dam that the Corps of Engineers is presently beginning the Plans Phase for (there is a confirmed "Federal Interest" in this Project and funding was included in WRDA 2007) as an "Eco System Restoration Project" to store and release low flows between hydro cycles as was originally intended in the authorization of Keystone Dam.  Other than that it would require an Act of Congress (with significant re-occurring funding) to offset the value of the power generation in order to modify the water rights in Keystone to include an environmental and/or ascetic release which the Corps has studied extensively and found not to be a practical solution.    

Ok that is good to hear. Thank you for the response to my concerns!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org