Sounds like there's a little misunderstanding to solve between the USACE and Fish & Wildlife people according to this morning's Tulsa World.
Unfortunately, when I click on the link from the Tulsa World web page to the story "River dams study challenged" it cannt find the page, hopefully it will be up later in the day.
The primary issue is F & W is accusing USACE of using overly-optimistic average flow rates in their study. Their concern is with inadequate flows created by dams, the build-up of waste or toxins, or reduced dissolved O2 levels in the water which would kill fish.
I think I've made it clear all along that my primary opposition to this plan is the haste with which this vote is being put forth. If this was fully thought-out and researched, I don't think we'd be hearing conflicting views on environmental impact and what adverse roles the WWT plant and refineries may or may not have on this package.
I'm not against river development and I'm not against paying for it. The vote is being pushed far too quick and I'm worried about finding out one of two things- either the total package is going to wind up costing double by the time it's finished or we will find out there's a feasibility issue and we won't wind up with half the items promised. Just because INCOG has worked on this for five years or however long doesn't mean it's perfect, nor that all necessary data has been collected.
I say scuttle the vote, or just vote no and re-propose in six months or a year after we have a firmer understanding of "exactly" what the issues are, what structures are included, and all environmental issues have been satisfied.
It's okay for a river to be fluid, but the plan to improve it shouldn't be.
The F&W boys story has been the same througout, articles below are from the channels 'dance':
http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2006/Zones/Ba/W_101806_ZB_8.pdf
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17263491&BRD=2754&PAG=461&dept_id=574068&rfi=6
This Pinc guy is new player who is stirring the pot and imho is just a player.
I'll go with the F&W services research. They are on the river as much as once, twice a week.
AGREED, this is too quick a vote.
What puzzles me is the Corps is responsible for managing the river flow and impoundment of waters upstream. Seems like they would have excellent historical data on flow and be able to create fairly accurate statistical models. I believe Keystone Dam has been in operation for over 40 years now.
We covered this in another thread ( River Plan county sets the ruless" i think) I posted the link for the historical data.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What puzzles me is the Corps is responsible for managing the river flow and impoundment of waters upstream. Seems like they would have excellent historical data on flow and be able to create fairly accurate statistical models. I believe Keystone Dam has been in operation for over 40 years now.
And the 2006 flows were abnormal due to repair work on the Keystone dam requiring it to be closed, not the drought. So, 2006 is not a year where data should be taken from.
But then the Corp knows that whereas it seems the Fish and Wildlife department do not.
It was odd that the Tulsa World would run this story on the front page of Monday's paper.
This was an employee of a federal agency complaining about the study done by a different federal agency.
The timimg is odd. The angle is odd. These same guys made the same arguments during the Channels discussions and the Tulsa World never printed anything.
What is the World up to printing both sides of an issue?
I disagree with the story, by the way. The same fish problems occured in 2006 and will not be made worse by adding water to the impoundments.
The real crux of their story is that they don't want the Corps of Engineers to use the model used on every other river to estimate low flow times, they want to use a recent year in the model. I don't necessarily disagree.
The argument is really against any dam on the river.
I think Keystone dam changed the river, but was necessary to protect Tulsa. It screwed up the fish as much as anything we have ever done to the Arkansas.
The dam at Sand Springs can be designed to hold back enough water to keep water flowing under dry conditions. Constant flow will be better for the fish than the sandbars we had in 2006.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
It was odd that the Tulsa World would run this story on the front page of Monday's paper.
This was an employee of a federal agency complaining about the study done by a different federal agency.
The timimg is odd. The angle is odd. These same guys made the same arguments during the Channels discussions and the Tulsa World never printed anything.
What is the World up to printing both sides of an issue?
I disagree with the story, by the way. The same fish problems occured in 2006 and will not be made worse by adding water to the impoundments.
The real crux of their story is that they don't want the Corps of Engineers to use the model used on every other river to estimate low flow times, they want to use a recent year in the model. I don't necessarily disagree.
The argument is really against any dam on the river.
I think Keystone dam changed the river, but was necessary to protect Tulsa. It screwed up the fish as much as anything we have ever done to the Arkansas.
The dam at Sand Springs can be designed to hold back enough water to keep water flowing under dry conditions. Constant flow will be better for the fish than the sandbars we had in 2006.
Today's Lorton's World article is not odd when you considered that they probably already recognized that the Kaiser River Tax is going to fail Oct. 9.
They are starting to provide themselves with some cover, including ACTUALLY providing some coverage of Vote NO Press Conferences, Rallies, and Press Releases.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
It was odd that the Tulsa World would run this story on the front page of Monday's paper.
This was an employee of a federal agency complaining about the study done by a different federal agency.
The timimg is odd. The angle is odd. These same guys made the same arguments during the Channels discussions and the Tulsa World never printed anything.
What is the World up to printing both sides of an issue?
I disagree with the story, by the way. The same fish problems occured in 2006 and will not be made worse by adding water to the impoundments.
The real crux of their story is that they don't want the Corps of Engineers to use the model used on every other river to estimate low flow times, they want to use a recent year in the model. I don't necessarily disagree.
The argument is really against any dam on the river.
I think Keystone dam changed the river, but was necessary to protect Tulsa. It screwed up the fish as much as anything we have ever done to the Arkansas.
The dam at Sand Springs can be designed to hold back enough water to keep water flowing under dry conditions. Constant flow will be better for the fish than the sandbars we had in 2006.
It was an odd article. The headline seemed to be designed as a roadside bomb. Very unfair as you then find out its the opinion of one federal Biologist and the Corps is still willing to listen and adjust.
The argument is really against any change in the river at all as anytime you change nature something is affected.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
It was odd that the Tulsa World would run this story on the front page of Monday's paper.
This was an employee of a federal agency complaining about the study done by a different federal agency.
The timimg is odd. The angle is odd. These same guys made the same arguments during the Channels discussions and the Tulsa World never printed anything.
What is the World up to printing both sides of an issue?
I disagree with the story, by the way. The same fish problems occured in 2006 and will not be made worse by adding water to the impoundments.
The real crux of their story is that they don't want the Corps of Engineers to use the model used on every other river to estimate low flow times, they want to use a recent year in the model. I don't necessarily disagree.
The argument is really against any dam on the river.
I think Keystone dam changed the river, but was necessary to protect Tulsa. It screwed up the fish as much as anything we have ever done to the Arkansas.
The dam at Sand Springs can be designed to hold back enough water to keep water flowing under dry conditions. Constant flow will be better for the fish than the sandbars we had in 2006.
Today's Lorton's World article is not odd when you considered that they probably already recognized that the Kaiser River Tax is going to fail Oct. 9.
They are starting to provide themselves with some cover, including ACTUALLY providing some coverage of Vote NO Press Conferences, Rallies, and Press Releases.
I wonder how long it will take Spincycle and Waterbuoy to smarten up and accept the Tulsa Kounty Kommisar Kaiser tax is D.O.A.?
One of the reasons I am for the river improvement tax is because you are against it, doubleA.
I am willing to pay a little more for a better place to live...you are whining a little more and living a bitter life.
The more you learn about a subject, the more you realize that decisions are rarely black/white. The way you can tell who's well informed is by their iron clad positions on a subject. This project is a good example of that. After looking at it from all angles, one can defend both positions. But if you look at the cost vs the benefits and take a pragmatic view you can't help but support it.
Look at the alternative. Another failed proposal means fewer and fewer river development efforts in the future as interest wanes. The river stays unimproved, with no clean up cause the public shows it doesn't really care. Roads and infrastructure stay pretty much status quo. Sewer treatment plants become invisible again yet continue to smell. Candidates for office, buoyed by the prospect of being elected by being against stuff, become less and less progressive and more status quo.
The city begins to resemble all the negative features so joyfully pointed out by detractors.
Onward thru the fog AA.
This article in the TW just like the ballot and rush to get the "River Tax" pushed through.... is what the average joe is going to base his vote on.
Mental Giants will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff....
The others will just read the Big print and vote.
If they truly believed in this plan they should have taken a better approach to educating the public.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
One of the reasons I am for the river improvement tax is because you are against it, doubleA.
I am willing to pay a little more for a better place to live...you are whining a little more and living a bitter life.
If you're willing to pay more, and are not taxed ENOUGH, then
Why Wait until Oct. 9??
Start sending your additional tax contributions immediately to:
TAX ME MORE CLUBChairman Randi Miller
c/o Tulsa County Commission
500 S. Denver
Tulsa OK 74103
She'll see that the money is spent "
For the Children".[:(]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The more you learn about a subject, the more you realize that decisions are rarely black/white. The way you can tell who's well informed is by their iron clad positions on a subject. This project is a good example of that. After looking at it from all angles, one can defend both positions. But if you look at the cost vs the benefits and take a pragmatic view you can't help but support it.
Look at the alternative. Another failed proposal means fewer and fewer river development efforts in the future as interest wanes. The river stays unimproved, with no clean up cause the public shows it doesn't really care. Roads and infrastructure stay pretty much status quo. Sewer treatment plants become invisible again yet continue to smell. Candidates for office, buoyed by the prospect of being elected by being against stuff, become less and less progressive and more status quo.
The city begins to resemble all the negative features so joyfully pointed out by detractors.
Onward thru the fog AA.
Waterboy, if the tax does not pass I don't think river development will fade away. We are only a year removed from the ambitious "Channels" announcement. Even though that plan apparently is DOA, we do owe the Stakeholders a debt of gratitude for moving discussion further along about the river far more than has happened in over 20 years.
If it fails, they will sit back, take a look at where it failed, hopefully collect more data, shore up details, and come up with a better marketing plan with more information.
I don't think interest will wane, it still needs to be built-up and I think that's possible if everyone will just be patient for another six months to a year. Rushing this to a vote was a huge mistake, IMO. I think too many voters feel like there is a gun to their head to make this happen now and the pants-wetting aspect of getting this approved right away scares some people who have a general distrust of our city and county governments.
One glaring problem I've seen all along is this is brought up for a county vote and you have the leaders of two of the largest suburbs speaking out loudly against it. Secondly, they should have let Smaligo or Perry be the ramrod on this project instead of the lightning rod that Randi Miller is. I notice Terry Simonson has been eerily silent for the last six weeks on this issue- he is someone most Tulsan's have trusted for a long time.
V-2025 worked because there was something for every community and demographic in the county.
I think the city needs to take the lead on it's part of the river and let Jenks and Sand Springs follow suit if they are interested as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
This article in the TW just like the ballot and rush to get the "River Tax" pushed through.... is what the average joe is going to base his vote on.
Mental Giants will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff....
The others will just read the Big print and vote.
If they truly believed in this plan they should have taken a better approach to educating the public.
I agree totally. They needed a new, different approach put together with detailed answers. Instead we got image advertising. Ironically it reinforces the dis-connect between the average working guy and the professional class which truly exists. Perhaps its a time constraint issue or just the wrong ad agency.
Why is it rushed? Perhaps they don't want this on a general election ballot where there is greater turnout, maybe they worry that the economy will tank within 6months, maybe they read the wrong polls. Good question though.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The more you learn about a subject, the more you realize that decisions are rarely black/white. The way you can tell who's well informed is by their iron clad positions on a subject. This project is a good example of that. After looking at it from all angles, one can defend both positions. But if you look at the cost vs the benefits and take a pragmatic view you can't help but support it.
Look at the alternative. Another failed proposal means fewer and fewer river development efforts in the future as interest wanes. The river stays unimproved, with no clean up cause the public shows it doesn't really care. Roads and infrastructure stay pretty much status quo. Sewer treatment plants become invisible again yet continue to smell. Candidates for office, buoyed by the prospect of being elected by being against stuff, become less and less progressive and more status quo.
The city begins to resemble all the negative features so joyfully pointed out by detractors.
Onward thru the fog AA.
Waterboy, if the tax does not pass I don't think river development will fade away. We are only a year removed from the ambitious "Channels" announcement. Even though that plan apparently is DOA, we do owe the Stakeholders a debt of gratitude for moving discussion further along about the river far more than has happened in over 20 years.
If it fails, they will sit back, take a look at where it failed, hopefully collect more data, shore up details, and come up with a better marketing plan with more information.
I don't think interest will wane, it still needs to be built-up and I think that's possible if everyone will just be patient for another six months to a year. Rushing this to a vote was a huge mistake, IMO. I think too many voters feel like there is a gun to their head to make this happen now and the pants-wetting aspect of getting this approved right away scares some people who have a general distrust of our city and county governments.
One glaring problem I've seen all along is this is brought up for a county vote and you have the leaders of two of the largest suburbs speaking out loudly against it. Secondly, they should have let Smaligo or Perry be the ramrod on this project instead of the lightning rod that Randi Miller is. I notice Terry Simonson has been eerily silent for the last six weeks on this issue- he is someone most Tulsan's have trusted for a long time.
V-2025 worked because there was something for every community and demographic in the county.
I think the city needs to take the lead on it's part of the river and let Jenks and Sand Springs follow suit if they are interested as well.
Simonson is leary of the coat tails effect of signing on to a losing project and an unpopular leader. Doesn't say much for him. Like I said, I think they all read the wrong polls or they read them before fairgrounds Randi screwed up.
I don't like that its rushed either.
As far as reconsidering and re-proposing...do you really think, having read posts here and watching North Tulsa contrived demonstrations, that any plan will be supported by the anti-forces? I hope you're right.
I thought only BA had come out against the plan. What other major community do you refer to?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read or heard Owasso is against it.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read or heard Owasso is against it.
Owasso city council voted for a resolution in favor of it; state Senator Randy "Mr. TABOR" Brogden, whose district covers much of Owasso, opposes it.
That's where I got Owasso being against it from, then. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
One of the reasons I am for the river improvement tax is because you are against it, doubleA.
I am willing to pay a little more for a better place to live...you are whining a little more and living a bitter life.
What part of the environment are you for, Michael? The F&W fellah seems awfully concerned, and he may as well be farting in the wind for all it is concerned. Savetulsabaseball? Save the least tern!
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by What part of the environment are you for, Michael?
I am for the outside part.
I have met with Gaylon Pinc as well I have attended every INCOG function hoping to get a NAY word in on the proposed development for the river -- I also agree the vote is way early in a proposal that hasn't gotten the first permit to build much less any "concrete" designs. If you look at all the PRO pep rallies on their face and the early vote it is fairly obvious this vote is going down in flames, polls taken have defeat about 5:1. The called vote by the county is being used as an expensive poll which will allow the PRO proponents to find out where the opposition is coming from - this is nothing new and has been used in other bond elections - Tulsa County had a real good idea this vote wouldn't fly before the bond election was set. This gives them some time to sit on the 2025 bond and get their ducks in a row before re-submitting the "improved" version.
My PROFESSIONAL opinion is the dams which are on the drawing boards will cause further degradation of water quality in the area around the proposed sites. These are STILL dams with a laydown gate design. There are more ECO friendly ways of accomplishing water in the river, that will allow pedestrian access to actually interact with the water and banks other than standing on a concrete hiking trail and looking at a static lake. You can bring in rock and RAISE the elevation in the proposed dam sites and create a long downstream elevation drop flume, this will in effect create a shallow lake which allows fish passage, water recreation in the form of light watercraft, eliminates siltation and is not a TAX drain on the county to operate. Instead of two lakes you could then have a series of these creating an area which also cleans the water as it flows by, the only need for concrete would be in a foundation under the rocks and below stream bed elevation. This plan and the planners have serious flaws, Zink dam has been responsible for drownings of many people since it was built in 1986. (see weir dam drowning machines)Zink dam is also partly responsible for the disappearance of the Arkansas River Shiner and Zebra darter (and if they find any in the current PHASE III USACE survey the dams WON'T be allowed at all (due to Federal Endangered Species Act) -- I am not against plans which actuall improve the river but I am dead set against the current planners who lead the day. This will be a somewhat moot point after the election -- but at least it has gotten Tulsa County to consider that the Arkansas river is a RESOURCE important to many people.
Does anyone know where one could find this "Fish and Wildlife Study" that shows what impact the kind of dams and such that are in the Kaiser Plan will supposedly have?
Tony, thanks for weighing in and sharing your opinions on the various topics we have going on this right now. I, for one, appreciate it.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Does anyone know where one could find this "Fish and Wildlife Study" that shows what impact the kind of dams and such that are in the Kaiser Plan will supposedly have?
The F&W people have not changed their tune since they were involved with the master plan.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Does anyone know where one could find this "Fish and Wildlife Study" that shows what impact the kind of dams and such that are in the Kaiser Plan will supposedly have?
That is exactly what the ongoing phase 3 study is by the Corps of Engineers (who is the regulatory authority) is developing.
I haven't looked William but I believe you can find SOME of the reports in the Tulsa District USACE website or call USACE and request a copy. ODWC as yet has NOT completed Phase III assessments due to high water all summer -- looks like they will be able to get back in now that the gates have closed.
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Does anyone know where one could find this "Fish and Wildlife Study" that shows what impact the kind of dams and such that are in the Kaiser Plan will supposedly have?
The F&W people have not changed their tune since they were involved with the master plan.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm
I was under the impression that some of the changes that this new river plan has in it were in response to some of the F&W concerns.
This plan has half the dams that the master plan proposed, which was at least 6 I believe. The dams and other things in this current proposal are significantly different in design, especially with the larger Sand Springs dam and the new Living River concept. I find it hard to believe they have done an impact study so quickly after this new proposal was put out.
The Kaiser "Living River" concept [?]is an improvement over the original six dams proposed for the river -- the original plan was not doable due to municipal sewage discharge and dam siting -- but the Kaiser plan is still a bait /switch routine in that the dams proposed by Kaiser plan are STILL controlled flow with gates -- the plan relies on faulty flow data from USACE. The promise to us(those that are concerned with fish passage)from Gaylon Pinc is that the gates would be opened during the prime fish migration season (spring months) good idea, but fish migrate up and down all year due to variables in Temperature, water quality, and flow -- impeding this movement (as would happen during drought) would decimate many fish species residing in the river. (as Zink already has done)prolonged drought even in a river without dams impacts fish as well. Dams just exacerbate and magnify the problem. Fish can still migrate up or down even with only 2" of water covering sand or gravel -- As proposed the dams elevations are too deep, this will also cause anoxia to any fish in the vicinity when the dams are closed and water quality in summer months is poor -- just because there is a lake doesn't mean the fish can survive in it. (if I hold you down and choke the life out of you and your heart stops -- I can't revive you with a new shot of oxygen.) Four sport species of commercial importance to Oklahoma will be impacted by these dams, they include Sauger -- which rely on the gravel beds below and above Zink to spawn, Striped Bass which migrate over 75 MILES in a 24 hour period and rely on a free flowing river to spawn, paddlefish which RELY on phytoplackton pushed by current, White Bass rely on the sandy banks for spawning, (but they can also open water broadcast spawn as well.) Spotted Bass, catfish, largemouth also utilize the river, as do several hundred species of forage fish that Least Terns depend on as well as Eagles -- a static lake will eventually cause Striped Bass, Paddlefish and White bass to disappear from the river in the Tulsa area, White bass and Striped Bass have been in serious decline since Zink was installed compared to historical levels pre Zink. ODWC is still conducting studies on this and reports should follow with the USACE phase III reports.
I implore those of you take a few minutes learn the REASONS Wildlife Agencies all over the US have taken stands against Low Head dams -- we are trodding over ground which has been cussed and discussed and studied to DEATH all over the country -- but here we go again - the government agencies have to be PC and cause us millions of dollars in wasted TAX money just so the game can play out -- the Science has already long ago (before Vision 2025) weighed in on screwing around with wetlands - and the RESULT of all those studies agree low head dams harm a river ecology. A living river already exists thru Tulsa County as stewards of that resource we should all be concerned.[:D]
What species will be helped by the low water dams? Certainly the list of winners is equally large - migratory birds, water fowl, humans - what else? You even mentioned that Sauger rely on gravel beds to spawn... beds created by the last dam put in.
Also, of what commercial importance are ANY of the fish in this portion of the Arkansas river? I've never known anyone to eat a fish out of that river (in the area discussed), let alone charter a guide or host bass tournament on it.
Most catfish live just as well in a stagnant
farm pond as they do a a river bottom. The flow is not nearly as important to them as one might think. They are even adept at survival in low oxygen situations. So my concern for them is minimal.
Stripped bass are an introduced species that NATURALLY would not exist in Oklahoma anyway. They are also more known as a lake fish than a river fish.
White bass need sandy banks to spawn, but I did not realize the river plan called for the removal of the sandy banks from the river. Zink has sandy banks. Keystone has sandy banks. Frankly, so long as the river still has sand in it there will be sandy banks and bars...
The Paddle Fish will feed below the dams. They probable will see an increase in food supply as the amount of surface area for plankton increases. The only place I have seen them within Tulsa County is below Keystone or below Zink lake. True, they will suffer during low flow - as they do now.
Speaking of which, what fish do well in smaller stagnant ponds that form currently? Once the dams are filled the FLOW will still be the same. Certainly the oxygen reserve in a large pool like Zink is more sustaining than a smaller pool formed between sand bars?
You make a compelling argument and I probably do not know the science as well as you, but nonetheless was able to raise some issues. The status quo is so far from nature that the nature argument is lost on me. It is currently a living river and all indications are that it will continue to be a living river with or without the dams.
I would differ on the list of winners -- Least Terns rely on the minnow population in SHALLOW water for food -- these minnow species are uniquely adapted to a this river -- proposed dams will alter that -- ODWC relies on White Bass, Sauger and Striped Bass obtained in the Arkansas in Tulsa for STATEWIDE stocking programs, to produce SAUGEYE and Hybrid Striped Bass at the Byron Fish hatchery - used in stocking programs ACROSS the state, and in trade with sister states for other valuable sport fish. -- Striped Bass WERE and are Native to the Mississippi basin of which the Arkansas connects to -- navigation all but wiped them out and they were REINTRODUCED to the range in 1968 -- so by your arguement if you were not born in Oklahoma before 1969 YOU are not native to the state.
All of Tulsa county including the fish and wildlife ALREADY existing in the TOWN greenbelt,(even wading humans) would continue to thrive and you could have a beautiful ECO friendly corridor with a change in Dam design -- that so hard to do???
I am not against the mere pittance of a tax, but FOR the river, Those of us who actually USE the river are in a minority in todays culture of bubbas, whose experience with the RIVER are on concrete walking trails, or in their cars as they pass by.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(]
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.
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.
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."
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.
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)]
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.
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.
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?
The scientist went first -- Vic tried to refute the fact(just like you do, its the party line[:(!]) that the Arkansas by definition is a Braided Prairie river both above and BELOW Keystone dam --
Vic would make a great potion seller in the old Wild West -- never met a man I didn't like less.
What no answer on INCOG's biological "expert" ?
Fortunately there WILL be a vote and I will abide by it -- this is just the FIRST round, still LOTS of time to refute YOUR plan.
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
What ODWC Study?
You mean the phase 3 environmental inventory that The Corps of Engineers is doing for Tulsa County on the 42 mile corridor.
Yes, DWC is the sampling subcontractor on that. Funny thing, if as an agency, not an individual biologist, ODWC was so concerned about the river here why have they never done this type of survey in the past even though development of the Corridor Master Plan has been ongoing for 4 years and Zink supposedly screwed up the fishery 25 years ago?
Oh and just so you know as administrator of the Corps contract it was my recommendation to perform the full 4 seasons sampling rather than the minimum which only samples for 2 seasons, but then again according to some I don't care about the health of the river.
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Nice ditty. But I'm tired of hearing you talk about greedy, selfish Tulsans. Put this in perspective for a moment.
Your poll information is coming from KRMG. They represent a tiny fraction of the community. A noisy, badly informed, passionate fraction. As I drove down 19th from Peoria to Lee School today, EVERY home with a sign in front was IN FAVOR of the river plan. I don't jump to the conclusion that its going to pass easily.
Then there's your selfish Tulsan attitude. OKC and Tulsa together represent some 3.5 million people? Give or take a half million. How much is left in the rest of the state? I'm guessing less than that. So even though the rural areas are larger, the urban areas have more people. If you want to put this to a state vote you probably lose badly.
Perhaps we should start analyzing the rest of the state's activities and weigh in on them. "Hey, Lawton, we don't want no stinkin' military base in our state making us a target for nukes!!" And frankly, these plans have been ongoing since WWII. Can they not read in the rural areas? Just now you feel besieged by the greedy city folk?!?
Not what I asked you -- I asked where is a Scientific Biologist sitting on INCOGS planning group? -- there isn't one because you don't want to hear about impacts --
There are other less productive ways to get you guys to hear -- but that will be left up to the courts.
If you were not a paid consultant and working for free with no strings attached I MIGHT believe you are a friend of the river -- you are just doing your due diligence for the folks punching your ticket -- and I might say a great job at that --
Get rid of the controlled gates, Lower the proposed dams to provide overflow and fish passage at 500 CFS and we might have some common ground.
quote:
Originally posted by 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)]
Does it hurt when you jump to such conclusions and land hard on you butt?[;)]
$10 gallon gas would make Oklahomans, Texans and Lousianans fabulously rich. Probably put a president of our choosing in office. And there are better technologies, some that the oil companies are investing in that will make sure we don't end up a third world country (you know like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.) Those wretched countries whose leaders pay for universal health care and build islands with our money.
Did you see the recent discovery that made water burn? Whoops! There goes Grand Lake.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Not what I asked you -- I asked where is a Scientific Biologist sitting on INCOGS planning group? -- there isn't one because you don't want to hear about impacts --
There are other less productive ways to get you guys to hear -- but that will be left up to the courts.
If you were not a paid consultant and working for free with no strings attached I MIGHT believe you are a friend of the river -- you are just doing your due diligence for the folks punching your ticket -- and I might say a great job at that --
Get rid of the controlled gates, Lower the proposed dams to provide overflow and fish passage at 500 CFS and we might have some common ground.
All my efforts FOR the proposal are for free as I have previously stated on this site, it would have been easy and safe to sit back. Spend some time with me and you might understand that, and yes that is an offer.
Passages or flumes what ever you want to call them are planned and likely in a flow controllable manner because different activities may do better at different rates, permitting and design will decide this not me or INCOG.
The top water elevations of both Zink and Sand springs will likely vary greatly as the tops are proposed to be adjusted with flash boards. SS is identified to cycle in elevation 3 feet or more pretty much each day giving a slower drop than on/off we get now and the same refresh time. The areas below Zink will get recharged in the same fashion by the hydro releases and having the low flow channel in this area sure seems like it will give a better forage pool situation than we have today and give us a great opportunity to provide low level bars and islands protected form shore predators.
USF&W and ODWC representatives were at the table, however I prefer not to toss out individuals names here so PM me and I'll be glad to let you know just who the representatives were. Sorry if they are not to your liking but those agencies chose who represented them. In addition the Master Plan consultant had a specific eco-firm on their team. adaptive ecosystems (//%22http://www.adaptiveecosystems.com/%22)
I know who the representatives at the table were - I visit with them occasionally. They are bound by serving ALL OKLAHOMANS. I also know only too well what permitting and design from USACE is going to allow just like the FIASCO at Zink or the FORMER Sand Springs low head dam -- that permitting/design will be based on flood control -- not fish passage nor the wildlife associated -- that begs I ask another question -- when it is determined that low head dams in the Arkansas contribute to severe damage during that next 300 year flood (we have had TWO in the last 30 years) who will be held liable? Where will monies come from to rebuild undermined trails, picnic structures, foundations? What is SO important to the "GROUP" you represent that you can't consider NON- Controlled ponds? Which would build in a series of elevation changes?
Zink damSHOULD be an embarrassment to the USACE engineer who designed then "implemented" that piece of junk. WHY would the current plan group expect those of us who were around pre- Zink to believe ANYTHING we are "promised"? If it wasn't for some back room dirty dealing by Mayor Inofhe back then Zink wouldn't exist -- SHOW me a design that can be set in stone, allows fish passage/migration even in lower flows,>500CFS, then developers will have the Fishermen and river users on board. Installing fish passage and light recreational water craft passage would be a great first step at Zink-- BUILD that FIRST then lets see if it works -- if it works build all the dams you want -- SHOW ME instead of empty promises. I heard the promises twenty years ago as a younger man -- sure left me distrustful of any more building IN the river.
I believe it is UNREALISTIC to imply contact water recreation above the proposed Sand Springs dam (complete with Marina) that is just a farce. I can envision all those sailboats sitting on their side in the mud. It is a GRAND proposal, go back to the drawing board and tweak it some more - We have Keystone lake for water sports just a short drive up 412.
To me we are covering OLD ground and OLD wounds that haven't healed from the first process --- Its no WONDER this has been going on for fourty years --
Thanks for the offer -- I am on the Arkansas or in it on a weekly basis -- let me show you what a Sauger is -- you didn't know what one was last year.[8D]
Ok, you just lost aaall credibility with the flooding comment.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I know who the representatives at the table were - I visit with them occasionally. They are bound by serving ALL OKLAHOMANS. I also know only too well what permitting and design from USACE is going to allow just like the FIASCO at Zink or the FORMER Sand Springs low head dam -- that permitting/design will be based on flood control -- not fish passage nor the wildlife associated -- that begs I ask another question -- when it is determined that low head dams in the Arkansas contribute to severe damage during that next 300 year flood (we have had TWO in the last 30 years) who will be held liable? Where will monies come from to rebuild undermined trails, picnic structures, foundations? What is SO important to the "GROUP" you represent that you can't consider NON- Controlled ponds? Which would build in a series of elevation changes?
Zink damSHOULD be an embarrassment to the USACE engineer who designed then "implemented" that piece of junk. WHY would the current plan group expect those of us who were around pre- Zink to believe ANYTHING we are "promised"? If it wasn't for some back room dirty dealing by Mayor Inofhe back then Zink wouldn't exist -- SHOW me a design that can be set in stone, allows fish passage/migration even in lower flows,>500CFS, then developers will have the Fishermen and river users on board. Installing fish passage and light recreational water craft passage would be a great first step at Zink-- BUILD that FIRST then lets see if it works -- if it works build all the dams you want -- SHOW ME instead of empty promises. I heard the promises twenty years ago as a younger man -- sure left me distrustful of any more building IN the river.
I believe it is UNREALISTIC to imply contact water recreation above the proposed Sand Springs dam (complete with Marina) that is just a farce. I can envision all those sailboats sitting on their side in the mud. It is a GRAND proposal, go back to the drawing board and tweak it some more - We have Keystone lake for water sports just a short drive up 412.
To me we are covering OLD ground and OLD wounds that haven't healed from the first process --- Its no WONDER this has been going on for fourty years --
Thanks for the offer -- I am on the Arkansas or in it on a weekly basis -- let me show you what a Sauger is -- you didn't know what one was last year.[8D]
Where do I start, other than you are mad about the past and unwilling to look at what is proposed for the future.
If you know who was at the table why do you say there were no biologists on the planning team?
The Corps did not design Zink, that is why they cannot pledge funds to fixing it even if we get federal funding for the river corridor. Permitting under the Clean Water Act was in its infancy then, not now. I have faith that the system will work, the Master Plan and the porposal includes both flood, recreation and wildlife features.
There has only been one 300 year event since Keystone was completed, 84 was not, 86 was at approximately 312,000cfs.
Non-controlled ponds as you state require overflow which is good except that they will silt up just like Zink and the now removed Sand springs re-regulatory did without the ability to pass silt from the flow line and provide no potential for water recreation.
Your opinion of water sports on the river is just that yours, I have sailed on the river many times in years past and it was quite challenging but fun and these days I float and wade it regularly.
I don't fish (other than going on a redfish trip a few years ago to South Louisiana, but if we could get them here I would start!) but I do know what a Sauger is, as I study myself informed on whatever I am working on. I have never been asked a question about fish species, you have me confused with another.
I was fishing regularly down there right before the flood that really worked over riverside and I've always allowed that it was 1986 ... 1993 was just a little higher than this last summer's flood by 2 ft or lake levels ... there was a lot more water being displaced this summer than in 1993 as that one hit all at once it seems like and that one hit right at the perfect time of year to allow fish to come over zink ... fishing was great for years after that one but I'm sure it was the flood of 1986. september 29th to Oct 21 flood levels got up to 755 in 1986 with the inflow being about 350,000 cfps at one point. they had to let out a massive amount of water just to keep up with the inflow and they also held it back a little too long when the flooding started. I remember that but I looked it up to make sure.
waterboy, you probably went through there right after that feller went through replacing all the vote no signs with vote yes signs hahaha.
let's put this into perspective ... you don't realize the scale in which these dams are likely going to mess up oklahoma's fishing ... it's not just a local thing ... it's state wide. here's some numbers and all these striper and hybrids came from eggs supplied from below zink dam ... you mess that up for ODWC and they're likely not going to be able to find another site like this one. but they may.
additional striper stocking
DATE
LAKE
NUMBER
07/26/07
Sooner
25,000
07/26/07
Keystone
20,000
07/27/07
Canton
1,000
07/27/07
Foss
1,000
Hybrid Striped Bass/White Bass
Altus-Lugert 64,128
Arcadia 18,000
Birch 12,600
Canton 70,418
C. Blackwell 17,487
Fort Cobb 41,000
Foss 44,060
Grand 103,908
Kaw 85,350 Common Cross (and 85,000 Reciprocals)
Konawa 13,950
OK River OKC 4,200
Oologah 49,256
Ponca City 8,500
Skiatook 106,424
Sooner 53,470
Tom Steed 64,000
Waurika 107,864
Total Hybrids Stocked = 864,615
Total Hybrids Requested = 756,840
These numbers are the fish that were stocked and not inclusive of the fish traded for like walleye and saugeye production and trade. This is just one year. I'm not even sure if that's the total for the year or not but if you disrupt those kind of numbers by putting in a few dams or relocating these fish making it harder to collect them or maybe impossible then you see why anglers get a little disgruntled. if it were left up to oklahoma as a whole then this thing would never get off the ground ... why would anyone want to pay for something that's not going to help them out any... maybe the folks living around the area might get improved property values and what not but how's that going to help the folks over in north tulsa or east tulsa ... there's a lot more folks in tulsa county that don't want this than the ones that do.
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
I don't think our economy can take $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon fuel. Workers could not afford get to work. We'll slip into a depression, Prices will skyrocket as truck drivers have to pass on the costs of the high fuel prices, Few drivers can afford $5.00 a gallon fuel. The high oil prices is the result of oil spectulars driving up the price and collecting profits, oil passed the $80.00 a barrel mark for the first time in history.. This is the time of year that fuel prices drop. This is the time of year that gasoline is at it's lowest prices of the year and we'll still bumping $3.00 a gallon. Talk about street repair, if people can't drive we don't need roads. If the lowest fuel prices of the year is still $3.00 a gallon we have big problemos ahead. Wait till next years summer driving season. Europe's gasoline is around $6.00 a gallon but 75% of that is all taxes and they have ways to get around without driving.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
I don't think our economy can take $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon fuel. Workers could not afford get to work. We'll slip into a depression, Prices will skyrocket as truck drivers have to pass on the costs of the high fuel prices, Few drivers can afford $5.00 a gallon fuel. The high oil prices is the result of oil spectulars driving up the price and collecting profits, oil passed the $80.00 a barrel mark for the first time in history.. This is the time of year that fuel prices drop. This is the time of year that gasoline is at it's lowest prices of the year and we'll still bumping $3.00 a gallon. Talk about street repair, if people can't drive we don't need roads. If the lowest fuel prices of the year is still $3.00 a gallon we have big problemos ahead. Wait till next years summer driving season. Europe's gasoline is around $6.00 a gallon but 75% of that is all taxes and they have ways to get around without driving.
Better to start a new topic for your remarks. They pretty much indicate why many people are quite scared right now. Occasionally good to think in worst case scenarios.
I thought you said Zink dam was horrible for fish? All of a sudden it is solely responsible for all the fish in Oklahoma? If one dam provides 850,000 fish for stocking, than with 3 more we should be able to provide 3.4 million... awesome!
If fish stocking is your major concern then don't worry at all. There are plenty of sources to get fish eggs from, hell - you can order them on the internet if you want to. So that's a total and complete non issue... even if I believed your hyperbole that Fish and Wildlife will run out of fish eggs in Oklahoma.
Whats more, the species you are mentioning are NON-NATIVE OKLAHOMA SPECIES. The Bass they stock are Florida F1 Large Mouth Bass... our "Native Largemouth" are actually classified as Sunfish, are much smaller, and less aggressive. The hybrid is also an introduced species. If you are worried about the natural state of the river... surely the continued stocking of these non-native species is a serious problem.
This is a small portion of river. It is also the most industrial waterway in Oklahoma for sure. Other than the massive hydroelectric dam and Zink dam, there are a couple refineries, a few sand dredging operations, a couple power plants, a sewage plant and a community of a 800,000. If you are looking for a pristine waterway to rescue, you're 100 years too late.
Finally, F&W themselves say they do not know.
http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/striperresearch/study.php
A VERY interesting study on Striped Bass in Zink lake and below. It tracks them by radio and lists their location for months. Please note that all these 10+ pound stripers were caught below a man made dam (keystone) and near another man made dam (Zink). I do not understand why you think other dams would be bad for the population when these fish thrive between them?
I want a healthy sporting atmosphere as much as anyone... but I see no proof that this will destroy existing fish stocks or hinder future ones. Fishing in Oklahoma as we know it depends on dams and man made lakes.
CF you know NOTHING about fishing -- FROM 33 years of EXPERIENCE on or in the Arkansas river, and on the water 270 days of the year in OKLAHOMA -- I believe I AM QUALIFIED to speak -- The Stilling basin below Keystone USED to have a spawning run of Striped Bass before Zink was constructed -- Zink blocked that run and moved it to a less suitable area below it. Zink dam operation was EVEN worse for fish when the county did open the gates to let fish through -- this due to the thousands of fish left on a shallow concrete pan once the gates closed, this left stranded dying fish. This native only BS gets my hot button -- FLORIDA largemouth introductions are NOT native to the state at all -- so by your reasoning they are of no value - B.S.-
That there still is a very fishable population of White Bass and Striped Bass has not one thing to do with ZINK dam -- the fish that manage to survive in the river are the FEW which can get over Zink during 65,000CFS flows and the ones which come thru the Keystone dam --
Striped Bass are native to the Gulf Coast/ Mississippi drainage to which the Arkansas connected BEFORE there were locks and navigation -- Striped Bass navigated hundreds of miles upstream -- the Kerr Navigation system killed off the Arkansas run -- Striped Bass were reintroduced above Keystone lake in the sixties and early seventies and have since REPOPULATED the Arkansas down to the Mississippi and are found below every lock and dam on the Arkansas -- so get off your native CRAP. White Bass which are OKLAHOMA's recognized NATIVE sportfish were also decimated by the NAVIGATION system -- but are more prolific than Striped Bass.
Zink dam is a MAJOR factor in the decline of sport fish in the Arkansas below and above it-- which is WHY fishermen do not like this plan
I challenged vision 2025 to correct Zink first , but all I got was vauge references to they didn't own it etc -- thats BULL , I talked to the ENGINEER who planned Zink dam and who was (or still is) an engineer for USACE.
I see the same kind of CRAP from the current WIZARDS in this plan as the ZINK plan -- I for one hope this fails BIG TIME.
The rocky bottom was there before Zink, the fish were there BEFORE Zink and before you were Potty trained --
GOOD IDEA -- Bad Plan --
MAybe we will do the RIGHT thing and dynamite Zink.
Most European Americans would not be here were it not for Striped Bass on the East Coast -- the PILGRIMS who landed at Plymouth Rock would have STARVED were it not for Striped Bass in ABUNDANCE -- of all the Fish In US waters Striped Bass have been the MOST important to our ancestors and history -- SO WHAT SHOULD THE NATIONAL FISH BE ???
Read some history BEFORE you get on a non-native kick.
Here is verbatium what OKLAHOMA WILDLIFE SAYS ABOUT THE PROPOSED DAMS
" in THE report prepared for the corps' environmental impact study.
The low-water dams would destroy about 10 miles of "prairie river habitat," said Brent Gordon, a fisheries biologist who prepared the report for the state agency.
And the water level will fluctuate too much to replace the river habitat with a sustainable lake habitat, Gordon said.
"What you end up with is neither," he said. "People think that if you want fish, all you need is water. But that's not true. It's not even close to true."
the non-native kick was in response to people defending the "natural state" of the river.
However, I very glad we have clarified the fact that you are qualified to speak above all others. If the fact that I actually cited to a source is not an indication that I look things up instead of making them up then you are not paying attention. I shall bow to your fish knowledge, oh great one, and not bother discussing this with you further.
and still vote yes on the river.
The river is all Tulsa has so the city needs to make the most of it. It's like the focus point of the city. Did ya see the picture of how the new RiverSide jogging/bike trail will look? Todays Tulsa news has a picture of it and it's really looks great, it'll be one trail for runners only and another trail for bike riders only. They will re-build it in sections. As for fishing in the river I don't think I'd like eat any Arkansas River fish. I also would not want to swim in it. The river should be looks only.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I challenged vision 2025 to correct Zink first , but all I got was vauge references to they didn't own it etc -- thats BULL , I talked to the ENGINEER who planned Zink dam and who was (or still is) an engineer for USACE.
I see the same kind of CRAP from the current WIZARDS in this plan as the ZINK plan -- I for one hope this fails BIG TIME.
MAybe we will do the RIGHT thing and dynamite Zink.
Tony,
Ok now it is my turn to ask for names, because I know the engineer who led the Zink Lake design pretty well and back then and through as recent as yesterday he was not at the Corps.
Have you actually reviewed the final version of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and what it specifically states about dam designs and eco system restoration or are you just blasting away at the past.
My opinion and I'm sorry if it offends, but you'll never ever get me to accept that river is just for fish. It has been and more importantly can be an even more successful contributor to our community than just a gravel bar for fish.
Once again, if you really want to see the plan contact me.
I don't take offense -- nor name names that PRIVATE discussions have been held with -- at the Jenks INCOG meeting HE is the one who said he was with the corps - so I could be mistaken.
You and I will just have to disagree and let the votes count. After all this fails and it is later reintroduced I would hope you guys will CONSIDER what Fish and Wildlife and ODWC told you - it just a contest of ideas at this point -- the lawyers will get rich in the end.
Just because a BRAIDED PRAIRIE river runs thru downtown Tulsa is no reason to screw it up.
I know you are sincere in your beliefs, Tony. I know that a fisherman would never lie.
I completely disagree with you on what these dams and river improvements will do for the river. I talk to some of the same experts you do and go to some of the same meetings you do.
The reason I am for this vote is that I truly think it will make it a cleaner and more abundant river than we have now. I think the public will be closer to the actual water and and that closer relationship will be make Tulsans interested in keeping it clean.
I hope a stronger connection with the river combined with a new beautification effort spurs a real sense of protecting nature in our community.
I think the fish in the river will have more oxygen based on the new dam designs, I think that the new designs that allow easier passage of eggs and fish are going to work just fine and will be an improvement from what we have today. The low flow of 2006 would have been better for the fish if the compounds of water created by a yes vote would have been in place.
This vote will put water in the river and keep water moving better than what we have now.
I can argue about priorities, overall tax burden, county oversight and many other parts of this vote. But I am voting yes because I truly belief it will make a better river. I am a fisherman too and I don't want to let this one get away.
vision2025, how wide are these gates going to be and how far down are they going to lower them during the spawn? are they going to be wide enough to allow the river to flow sort of naturally during this time frame from April to about the third week of May? Like let the river flow to it's natural levels during that time or are they just going to open them for a week or so? If the gates are going to be just 8 to 10 ft wide that they're opening then that's pretty much useless it seems as the eggs or anything else probably won't flow through if there's a lot of restriction there before the dam sites. What would be cool is if they had the dams set up so that at least half the dam would open up on all of them so that the river would flow at it's natural levels during that time period.
I also never said that zink dam is great for anything but it's currently a blockade for the striper every year and they can't go any further than that and the shallow water below zink dam allows the ODWC easy access to the striper that are trying to get up river to spawn. They don't ever make it past zink dam and I don't think they can go past zink unless the flow is more like 85,000 cfps. at 65,000 cfps there's still about a 2 ft waterfall dropping from zink dam. They may be able to negotiate it though but I've only seen massive water flow in mid april just a few times in the last 20 years down there.
I'm sure that they'll eventually get the dams put up and I hope that one below zink stinks as bad as I think it's going to. be nice to see all that green sewage pooled up there with a nice green froth on top with a few dead fish mixed in with it for color and added aroma. might make for good business for all those fast food joints right there on 71st street and whet everyone's appetite hahaha. (http://www.catfishing.tv/cattalk/images/smiles/laughing-smileys-emoticons154.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
vision2025, how wide are these gates going to be and how far down are they going to lower them during the spawn? are they going to be wide enough to allow the river to flow sort of naturally during this time frame from April to about the third week of May? Like let the river flow to it's natural levels during that time or are they just going to open them for a week or so? If the gates are going to be just 8 to 10 ft wide that they're opening then that's pretty much useless it seems as the eggs or anything else probably won't flow through if there's a lot of restriction there before the dam sites. What would be cool is if they had the dams set up so that at least half the dam would open up on all of them so that the river would flow at it's natural levels during that time period.
I also never said that zink dam is great for anything but it's currently a blockade for the striper every year and they can't go any further than that and the shallow water below zink dam allows the ODWC easy access to the striper that are trying to get up river to spawn. They don't ever make it past zink dam and I don't think they can go past zink unless the flow is more like 85,000 cfps. at 65,000 cfps there's still about a 2 ft waterfall dropping from zink dam. They may be able to negotiate it though but I've only seen massive water flow in mid april just a few times in the last 20 years down there.
I'm sure that they'll eventually get the dams put up and I hope that one below zink stinks as bad as I think it's going to. be nice to see all that green sewage pooled up there with a nice green froth on top with a few dead fish mixed in with it for color and added aroma. might make for good business for all those fast food joints right there on 71st street and whet everyone's appetite hahaha. (http://www.catfishing.tv/cattalk/images/smiles/laughing-smileys-emoticons154.gif)
The master plan makes various recommendations concerning the need for greatly increased gate volumes than what Zink presently has. What is proposed (at Sand Springs and Jenks) is 3 gate sections per dam, each section containing 2-100' bascule gates (same lay flat type as is in Zink) for a total of 600' of gate per dam with cascade or other energy dissipating/aerating weirs for the remainder of the structure. The Study also recommends "a study to determine the frequency and duration the gates should be fully opened for fish migration" which the current sampling is a critical first step in and analysis to determine that the flume velocities are appropriate for striper and paddle fish swim speeds.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I can argue about priorities, overall tax burden, county oversight and many other parts of this vote. But I am voting yes because I truly belief it will make a better river. I am a fisherman too and I don't want to let this one get away.
I'm with you RM, I belief it too.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
vision2025, how wide are these gates going to be and how far down are they going to lower them during the spawn? are they going to be wide enough to allow the river to flow sort of naturally during this time frame from April to about the third week of May? Like let the river flow to it's natural levels during that time or are they just going to open them for a week or so? If the gates are going to be just 8 to 10 ft wide that they're opening then that's pretty much useless it seems as the eggs or anything else probably won't flow through if there's a lot of restriction there before the dam sites. What would be cool is if they had the dams set up so that at least half the dam would open up on all of them so that the river would flow at it's natural levels during that time period.
I also never said that zink dam is great for anything but it's currently a blockade for the striper every year and they can't go any further than that and the shallow water below zink dam allows the ODWC easy access to the striper that are trying to get up river to spawn. They don't ever make it past zink dam and I don't think they can go past zink unless the flow is more like 85,000 cfps. at 65,000 cfps there's still about a 2 ft waterfall dropping from zink dam. They may be able to negotiate it though but I've only seen massive water flow in mid april just a few times in the last 20 years down there.
I'm sure that they'll eventually get the dams put up and I hope that one below zink stinks as bad as I think it's going to. be nice to see all that green sewage pooled up there with a nice green froth on top with a few dead fish mixed in with it for color and added aroma. might make for good business for all those fast food joints right there on 71st street and whet everyone's appetite hahaha. (http://www.catfishing.tv/cattalk/images/smiles/laughing-smileys-emoticons154.gif)
The master plan makes various recommendations concerning the need for greatly increased gate volumes than what Zink presently has. What is proposed (at Sand Springs and Jenks) is 3 gate sections per dam, each section containing 2-100' bascule gates (same lay flat type as is in Zink) for a total of 600' of gate per dam with cascade or other energy dissipating/aerating weirs for the remainder of the structure. The Study also recommends "a study to determine the frequency and duration the gates should be fully opened for fish migration" which the current sampling is a critical first step in and analysis to determine that the flume velocities are appropriate for striper and paddle fish swim speeds.
That's great. Someone call me when all the studies are completed and they are ready to tell us
exactly what the enviro impact is, and what
recommendations will be built. I will gladly beat the drum as loud for development and a tax supporting it as I've been beating it in opposition.
The BIG QUESTION of the day -- whats the rush to vote? I want to see these designs finalized, then I want to see whether or if 404 requirements will be met, IF the dams then pass flood requirements -- what the final estimated REAL cost of each structure will be -- what the recomendations of the varoius wildlife agencies will be, IF USACE permits the plans, etc, etc, -- I fully understand this OCT-9 vote will be a gauging instrument for you proponents -- if the vote fails que sera sera, you just approach this from another Tack. INCOG has FAILED to get all stakeholders input -- just a close cadre of supporters are allowed - no reasonable opposition is heard -- so there you have it in a nutshell.
Kaiser can put in funds any time they please, three tax seasons from now perhaps all studies will be in -- TRUE public input will be allowed , then we can see some real DEMOCRATIC process in place for this proposal.
The Cart is Pulling this horse.
well that sounds kinda alright, there are other species to consider and not just striper and paddlefish ... white bass and blue catfish are also another migration species during the spawn. the bluecat leave the lake the third week of may to go up river to spawn so that's quite a bit later than striper and paddlefish ... will those species be taken into account as well? If they're all inclusive the gates could be down as long as nearly 3 months ... will the tulsa citizens be receptive to these kinda long term gate openings ... from about the first of april to about mid june? the bluecat leave the lake around may 21st to head up river and start spawning around mid june. the gates could be raised about june 7th with no ill effects to the bluecat as they'll be able to make their way back down river without the gates open but they're not jumpers ... they can't get over dams coming up river. These are just questions that are rattling around in my head about this stuff. also would tulsa citizens be able to put pressure on the folks that control the gates so they can have their lakes dispite the needs of the wildlife? seems like that's what happened with zink dam ... someone decided they didn't want to see zink lake low or something and the gate was supposed to be opened to allow fish passage but I can only remember it being opened one time. I guess it's silted in now so it can't be opened but what's to prevent these new dams from having the same problem... they had no problem keeping zink gate closed all those years and I kinda think this will be the venue for the new dams ... promise folks things just to get them built and then don't follow through when it comes time to open them. Seems like that's been the norm with zink, anyhow. Will there be a seperate oversight deal on gate control ... will the gates be controled by the people that know the fish (ODWC) or will they be controlled byt he same people that were supposed to open zink gate? will it be manditory gate openings during this time of year ... what will be the penalties to the folks that decide to not open them so they can have their lakes during the time the fish are needing to get through. if it's the same as zink then nothing will happen and the ones that lose are the sportsmen of the state with no reprocussion or anything happen to the individuals that decided to keep the dams closed. I kinda think that's the way things are going to happen as we've already seen it happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
well that sounds kinda alright, there are other species to consider and not just striper and paddlefish ... white bass and blue catfish are also another migration species during the spawn. the bluecat leave the lake the third week of may to go up river to spawn so that's quite a bit later than striper and paddlefish ... will those species be taken into account as well? If they're all inclusive the gates could be down as long as nearly 3 months ... will the tulsa citizens be receptive to these kinda long term gate openings ... from about the first of april to about mid june? the bluecat leave the lake around may 21st to head up river and start spawning around mid june. the gates could be raised about june 7th with no ill effects to the bluecat as they'll be able to make their way back down river without the gates open but they're not jumpers ... they can't get over dams coming up river. These are just questions that are rattling around in my head about this stuff. also would tulsa citizens be able to put pressure on the folks that control the gates so they can have their lakes dispite the needs of the wildlife? seems like that's what happened with zink dam ... someone decided they didn't want to see zink lake low or something and the gate was supposed to be opened to allow fish passage but I can only remember it being opened one time. I guess it's silted in now so it can't be opened but what's to prevent these new dams from having the same problem... they had no problem keeping zink gate closed all those years and I kinda think this will be the venue for the new dams ... promise folks things just to get them built and then don't follow through when it comes time to open them. Seems like that's been the norm with zink, anyhow. Will there be a seperate oversight deal on gate control ... will the gates be controled by the people that know the fish (ODWC) or will they be controlled byt he same people that were supposed to open zink gate? will it be manditory gate openings during this time of year ... what will be the penalties to the folks that decide to not open them so they can have their lakes during the time the fish are needing to get through. if it's the same as zink then nothing will happen and the ones that lose are the sportsmen of the state with no reprocussion or anything happen to the individuals that decided to keep the dams closed. I kinda think that's the way things are going to happen as we've already seen it happen.
What organization would operate the gates has not yet been determined. However who ever is ultimately responsible they will be required to operate the facilities in strict accordance with the permit.
RM... "I know a fisherman would never lie"..... Now THAT is funny.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
The BIG QUESTION of the day -- whats the rush to vote?
The supposition of the proponents is that they have $113M in pledged donations and if they wait around, some or all of it will go away.
^^I think Dscott mentioned on one of the other threads that the anti's were using fear. How's that for a fear tactic for the yes folk?
I noticed Piercy couldn't give a definite on that answer when asked directly last night either.
they were required to open the gate on zink dam also but they quit doin it then it silted the gate in.
sounds like these people are throwing this stuff at us about the gates to get some to vote yes and then when the dams go up and they lower the gates one time and see and smell all the dead zebra mussels coverging all the rocks that were previously under water they'll decide to not lower the water level again. The zebra mussels infested the higher water levels this summer at keystone lake and they haven't been in there all that long ... just a few years but they spread fast enough that they pretty much covered the rocks that were under the flood waters for a couple of months and the stink was pretty bad .... expand that to 9 months in the arkansas river and then lower the water levels the rocks will be almost completely covered in zebra mussels ... it's gonna be a nice aroma when they lower the water levels as promised the first year and then will they lower them again ... I doubt it unless there's someone controlling the gates that doesn't have to smell the rotting zebra mussels. will the pressure from the residents around there force their hand in keeping the gates closed for any number of reasons and not just because of the stinking?
I can't see anyone following through with promises of opening the gates that are proposed ... they didn't do it on zink dam and there weren't any zebra mussels back then. also will the zebra mussels be able to foul the gates and prevent them from operating properly?
this is just me wondering about stuff like this, mostly. I mean if someone or some group has control of the gates that can be put under pressure to leave them closed during the times specified which should probably be almost three months as bluecat should be considered in this gate opening and not just striper and spoonbill ... bluecat are a migratory spawner as well and they leave the lake in keystone to head up towards kaw to spawn on the third week of may ... well from the second week to the third week they're headed up river and are usually gone by the third week ... they'll be like this down below tulsa also and should start making their way through the gates around June 1 and spawning from then until mid to late june ... they can get back down river but can't get over the gates if they're closed when they get there around june first. will they allow the gates to be open from april first to about June 7th? Or, is the bluecat not going to be considered in this study? it is now one of oklahoma's major gamefish. Some of the people also call them Mississippi Whites that live around Tulsa and east of Tulsa.
You can call HONEST information fear, or you can call it information -- the proponents dodge the issue on how Federal Flood boundaries will change with a higher elevation dam at Sand Springs -- they don't have a clue (or do have and conveniently say it won't change -- I call BS on that) -- Lots of the proponents skirt around the useful aspects of the "ponds" during a PROLONGED water release from Keystone like we had for three months this summer -- it takes the corps a LONG time to release all that water and the RIVER is for all practical purposes (fishing too) unavailable to most people for any SAFE recreational use.
These proposed lakes WILL destroy the Striped Bass spawn -- it is a fact -- Striped bass eggs must tumble in current for 72 hours(or swirl in eddies) after being broadcast and fertilized -- if eggs sink to the bottom they are covered by sediment and die. When any eggs produced upstream of the proposed dams hit the ponds they will settle to the bottom due to loss in current velocity -- OKLAHOMA will loose this resource -- thats not theory thats FACT. Striped bass spawn above Zink dam as well as below Zink dam -- as it is now the viability of those fish above Zink dam has been severly impacted for the last 23 years -- they are just barely holding their own in this area --
The proposed dams won't ever have enough flow thru current velocity UNLESS water is released from streambed level, the flow thru design proposal is over the top of drop boards -- it would be CRITICAL to OKLAHOMAS fishery that if any dams were built that they would have total flow through from March till Mid July -- Like Tiny I don't see that ever happening -- It didn't happen with Zink and that was the promise then-- Tiny has an excellent point about the Zebra mussel infestations -- they are already bad and getting worse --- static pools will further ENCOURAGE this infestation. Zebra Mussels do not do well in current areas, another point that should be brought to light in this discourse.
Build on the banks all you want -- leave the river alone --
So who cares about the fish you proponents all say ?-- in answer the STATE of OKLAHOMA does.
Zink dam has been the demise of a once OUTSTANDING fishery below Keystone dam --
All of the information posted is available to be reviewed in the Journals of the American Fisheries Society studies.
Let the state stand up for them then if its such a big issue.
The state did just last week - something that bothered Vic Vreeland so much he asked for equal rebuttal time, the SAME Vic Vreeland who has made known for the PUBLIC to hear "We won't let environmental issues stand in our way" (paraphrased from the Jenks open Gurnsey/INCOG info mercial and in front of six witnesses.)
The proponents convienently choose to ignore the FACTS of the case.
Makes one wonder what other "opportunities" they choose to ignore[V]
The Zebra mussel is an interesting problem. Unless they find an efficient predator for them they may indeed mess up the gates. And I suppose stink as well. But other water communities are also having to deal with them including all area lakes. Isn't this a problem that can be managed along with the blue cat? (arent' those also called Channel cats?)
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The Zebra mussel is an interesting problem. Unless they find an efficient predator for them they may indeed mess up the gates. And I suppose stink as well. But other water communities are also having to deal with them including all area lakes. Isn't this a problem that can be managed along with the blue cat? (arent' those also called Channel cats?)
Blue and Channel are different.
What's interesting is that Oologah has had a Zebra Mussel problem for several years- longer than Keystone. Yet when the water receded this year from the flooding, no evidence is found of the mussels on rocks. Resident boats I've seen hauled out recently have little to no infestation on their keels, hulls, or rudders. Boats hauled out a few years ago would be covered, as was dock material.
I don't know what's going on, but at least to my un-trained eye the problem seems to be easing on Oologah.
And you wouldn't have seen any colonies in the recent flood levels once water has receeded to normal conservation pool -- the colonies form on the rocks below conservation pool level-- they cover just about anything that is on bottom or sticks up out of it -- they don't receed and have no natural predator -- but Drum and Bluecat fish do eat them. Oologah has immense colonies in the submerged brush and rocks below conservation pool -- as well Sooner has the same problem, Keystone has them presently colonizing the less turbid arms of the lake, and they spread by veliger larva in the spring ---so once established in the Arkansas River there is no control agent for them. I have pictures of colonized lakes in Kansas -- not a pretty sight when water is low and they do become a stinking mess.
they're already in the arkansas below keystone tony ... there's a lot of them that are dead on the side of the bank where the flood water level was for a few weeks.
the ones that I'm talking about over on keystone was well above conservation pool level and on all the rocks around the shoreline around cowskin bay and everywhere else. it only took them a couple of months to get up there and get pretty thick in some spots even though keystone has only had them a few years. keystone waters are probably ideal habitat for them ... lots of zooplankton for them to filter out and that's evident from the shad population.
I was walking across the rocks just as recently as yesterday to load my boat on the trailer and they were everywhere on those rocks by the boat ramp at swift park. not real thick but still yet everywhere ... this is only the second or third year too.
they weren't very thick over on the rocks at cowskin bay but they stunk pretty badly when the water went down. there was probably 10 to 40 on each rock. They're a lot thicker on oologah.
Bluecat are a different species than channelcat... channelcat are more of a resident fish also ... they spawn in the lake or just anywhere they are. blue catfish are migratory and the identification characteristics is by the number of rays in the anal fins of these two species ... bluecat have 30 to 34 anal fin rays and channelcat have between 25 to 29 ... male channelcat can also be blue during the spawn ... the males turn blue and their heads swell up and they're the ones that guard the nests. when the male channelcat turns blue it's almost a bluejean color blue and they're solid blue. the real bluecat are most of the time white on most of their body ... the less light they're exposed to the more white they'll be .. like in mid winter in a muddy lake they'll turn almost chalk white ... if they're in a shallow clear water system they can get almost black in color. their coloration is also part of the reason why eastern oklahomans call them "mississippi whites" ... they thought we already had a bluecat pre 60's but those were just male channelcat ... male channelcat are also called chucklehead blues but the way to tell them apart is by counting their anal fin rays ... less than 30 = channelcat ... more than 30 = bluecat
I saw on one of the nature channels that sea otters eat shellfish and it made me wonder if river otters might eat mussels. If so we could sure breed those little guys to do the work. Otherwise they will be stinking the place up.
Lets see the Engineers have as part of the PROMISES to open the gates during migrating /spawning time - the bottom is coated with colonies of Zebra Mussels coating every rock and structure they can adhere to-
a 90 degree May day and exposed mussel beds -- should be a great Aroma for Tulsa joggers.[8]
The gates will be opened EXACTLY one time -- unless it is written into a law with some teeth.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Lets see the Engineers have as part of the PROMISES to open the gates during migrating /spawning time - the bottom is coated with colonies of Zebra Mussels coating every rock and structure they can adhere to-
a 90 degree May day and exposed mussel beds -- should be a great Aroma for Tulsa joggers.[8]
The gates will be opened EXACTLY one time -- unless it is written into a law with some teeth.
When Mayor Chatty Kathy Taylor puts "water in the river", she's going to destroy the native habitat of the Least Tern.
Period.
Those little guys exist on the sand bars out in the river, being as they are a land-roosting bird.
Out on those sand bars, they avoid hungry PREDATORS.
Put water in the River, and they go: Bye-Bye.
No more Least Terns. They become:
The Lesser Terns of Tulsa.
[:O]
Huh? The least tern and bald eagles are on the top of everyone's radar, no one wants to displace them. In fact regulating the ON/OFF water level should give them more permanent nesting spots then the nightly rush of water allows for.
Also, I did not know that this plan was all Mayor Taylor's idea. I thought this was a colaboration of many agencies (INCOG, CORPS, RPA, public input, county, cities and private contributors like George Kaiser). If Mayor Taylor is acting alone then she certainly has accomplished alot.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Lets see the Engineers have as part of the PROMISES to open the gates during migrating /spawning time - the bottom is coated with colonies of Zebra Mussels coating every rock and structure they can adhere to-
a 90 degree May day and exposed mussel beds -- should be a great Aroma for Tulsa joggers.[8]
The gates will be opened EXACTLY one time -- unless it is written into a law with some teeth.
When Mayor Chatty Kathy Taylor puts "water in the river", she's going to destroy the native habitat of the Least Tern.
Period.
Those little guys exist on the sand bars out in the river, being as they are a land-roosting bird.
Out on those sand bars, they avoid hungry PREDATORS.
Put water in the River, and they go: Bye-Bye.
No more Least Terns. They become:
The Lesser Terns of Tulsa.
[:O]
There you go again. You have no basis for those assertions. Least terns in total along the river are rising in numbers according to latest counts. The two areas that will be covered with water represent a very small portion that floods every night throughout the nesting season anyway. You ain't never been on those bars in the evening and watched them be covered with the generation flow.
Stick to conspiracies Bear, your forte is not nature.
zebra mussels are about as big as your thumbnail so I doubt otters would find them appealing. otters wouldn't live in tulsa anyhow. I'm sure you knew that and was just joking.
the thing is, there's going to be a lot of bad outcome when the dams go up and ya'll just don't care ... take your grandkids down there after they've been up about 20 or so years and then explain to them how you voted to put them up ... probably august or september would be a good time to take them when the flow is really low and walk them around the jenks pool ... take yourself a picture of the zebra mussel covered rocks when they lower the water the first time because I really don't think they'll lower them again ... take yourself a picture of the green scum covered water in the jenks pool and the dead and rotting fish and be proud that you helped do that to a pretty great river. I'll probably be dead and gone by the time all this takes place but if I'm still here ... I'll drop by occasionally to rub it in. I still think that there's going to be someone put an injunction and perhaps a law on the books that'll prevent cities from doing what tulsa is trying to do. wouldn't that be a kick in the head hahaha ... if ya'll passed the tax vote and then the state stepped in and said can't do it. one can fantasize can't he hahaha.