http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080115_1_A9_spanc87803
quote:
Commission starts paperwork for dams
by: KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
1/15/2008 12:00 AM
The County Commission voted unanimously Monday to begin accepting requests for qualifications for engineering and design work for low-water dams in Sand Springs and Jenks and for modifications to Zink Dam in Tulsa.
Kirby Crowe of Program Management Group, which administers Vision 2025 programs for the county, said he expects to recommend a firm to the commission by April or May.
Firms that submit requests for qualifications are not re quired to include a fee for their services, Crowe said.
The fee will be negotiated once the firm is selected, he said.
The commissioners' action comes more than three months after county residents rejected a $282 million river-development proposal. The plan would have been funded by increasing the county sales tax 0.4 percent for seven years.
A group of local leaders has been meeting since the Oct. 9 vote to discuss river development options.
The commissioners voted in December to accept the group's recommendation to proceed with the $9.5 million in river projects approved by voters in the Vision 2025 package.
Crowe estimated that the design and engineering work could take 18 months to two years to complete.
The $23 billion federal Water Resources Development Act, which Congress passed in November, authorizes $50 million for Arkansas River development projects. That includes funds that could be used for ecosystem restoration, recreation and flood damage-reduction projects.
County commissioners will continue to look for funds to build the dams.
I thought they already ****ing did the engineering and design work. I thought throughout the river tax they said that the money had already been spent on that stuff? How many more design studies do we have to endure? Someone is getting paid a lot of money to be an arm chair beaver.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I thought they already ****ing did the engineering and design work. I thought throughout the river tax they said that the money had already been spent on that stuff? How many more design studies do we have to endure? Someone is getting paid a lot of money to be an arm chair beaver.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
The engineering is done, as far as I know, but, from what I hear, there is still bickering on small land issues affecting one of our more outspoken
Tulsa residents who has interest in a significant amount of river-front land in Jenks.
Oh!. . . and I think they have to get approval from the Core of Engineers, and will have to produce significant environmental studies. I'd say it's about 10 to 20 years out if we don't loose interest.
What are the significance of low water dams to Tulsa and the region? Doesn't really say in the article, apart from eco-stuff (flood control, etc).
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080115_1_A9_spanc87803
quote:
Commission starts paperwork for dams
by: KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
1/15/2008 12:00 AM
The County Commission voted unanimously Monday to begin accepting requests for qualifications for engineering and design work for low-water dams in Sand Springs and Jenks and for modifications to Zink Dam in Tulsa.
Kirby Crowe of Program Management Group, which administers Vision 2025 programs for the county, said he expects to recommend a firm to the commission by April or May.
Firms that submit requests for qualifications are not re quired to include a fee for their services, Crowe said.
The fee will be negotiated once the firm is selected, he said.
The commissioners' action comes more than three months after county residents rejected a $282 million river-development proposal. The plan would have been funded by increasing the county sales tax 0.4 percent for seven years.
A group of local leaders has been meeting since the Oct. 9 vote to discuss river development options.
The commissioners voted in December to accept the group's recommendation to proceed with the $9.5 million in river projects approved by voters in the Vision 2025 package.
Crowe estimated that the design and engineering work could take 18 months to two years to complete.
The $23 billion federal Water Resources Development Act, which Congress passed in November, authorizes $50 million for Arkansas River development projects. That includes funds that could be used for ecosystem restoration, recreation and flood damage-reduction projects.
County commissioners will continue to look for funds to build the dams.
Is it not unusual to not ask firms to submit their fee before being selected?
I had renewed confidence in the river a few days ago when the CEO of SemGroup commented "we will put water in that river. It's going to happen." Or something to that effect at the end of an article in the Tulsa World (not yesterday's SemGroup article).
When a business leader with Billions says he wants to see something happen, then it very well may happen. Especially if he isn't calling for public money to do it with.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
What are the significance of low water dams to Tulsa and the region? Doesn't really say in the article, apart from eco-stuff (flood control, etc).
The river is barren most of the year and the low water dams are meant to slow the flow and keep the river more full during the year. Tulsa has long been chastised for not developing the river and making the river flow year round is a first step in that.
On the engineering side, they have done environmental studies, hydrological studies, etc. All just making sure we can put them where we want to and what areas will need shored up etc. If this was a new office building being built, we just got the news the land is safe to build on. So we are far from having the whole thing designed. They don't just shove dirt in the river and say "tada"
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I thought they already ****ing did the engineering and design work. I thought throughout the river tax they said that the money had already been spent on that stuff? How many more design studies do we have to endure? Someone is getting paid a lot of money to be an arm chair beaver.
Different engineering study. Studies for the dam placements are different than studies for design types. etc.
Any idea yet on when any federal funds may come through. They still have to be put in an appropriations bill but I suppose you might have to know what kind of dams your building first to estimate costs?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I thought they already ****ing did the engineering and design work. I thought throughout the river tax they said that the money had already been spent on that stuff? How many more design studies do we have to endure? Someone is getting paid a lot of money to be an arm chair beaver.
Different engineering study. Studies for the dam placements are different than studies for design types. etc.
Any idea yet on when any federal funds may come through. They still have to be put in an appropriations bill but I suppose you might have to know what kind of dams your building first to estimate costs?
I think it's $50M no matter what the plan.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I thought they already ****ing did the engineering and design work. I thought throughout the river tax they said that the money had already been spent on that stuff? How many more design studies do we have to endure? Someone is getting paid a lot of money to be an arm chair beaver.
Different engineering study. Studies for the dam placements are different than studies for design types. etc.
Any idea yet on when any federal funds may come through. They still have to be put in an appropriations bill but I suppose you might have to know what kind of dams your building first to estimate costs?
I think it's $50M no matter what the plan.
Yup--it's $50M, period. And it's already passed: the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-114, passed over Bush's veto on 11/9/2007.
Tulsa will have to request the allocation and be approved for it before funds are disbursed. I'm looking at what is involved in this right now, as far as agency approval.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Any idea yet on when any federal funds may come through. They still have to be put in an appropriations bill but I suppose you might have to know what kind of dams your building first to estimate costs?
I think it's $50M no matter what the plan.
Yup--it's $50M, period. And it's already passed: the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Public Law No. 110-114, passed over Bush's veto on 11/9/2007.
Tulsa will have to request the allocation and be approved for it before funds are disbursed. I'm looking at what is involved in this right now, as far as agency approval.
I have a more complete answer now--
The authorization is law, and it looks like this:
quote:
SEC. 3132. ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OKLAHOMA.
(a) In General- The Secretary is authorized to participate in the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan dated October 2005. The Secretary shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma, including representatives of Tulsa County and surrounding communities and the Indian Nations Council of Governments.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.
So what we have is a lawful five-year fund authorization, but it will still have to go through Appropriations. At some point, our congressional delegation will have to insert provisions for appropriating the funds into the federal budget legislation. At that point, the money will go the Corps, which will coordinate with "appropriate representatives in the vicinity of Tulsa." This has got to happen by the end of 2012 or we'll lose whatever portion of the $50 million yet to be authorized.
My understanding is that the authorization was the hard part. Now it's "just" a matter of moving money through Congress and the Corps, which is where Rep. Sullivan and Sen. Inhofe come in.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
So what we have is a lawful five-year fund authorization, but it will still have to go through Appropriations. At some point, our congressional delegation will have to insert provisions for appropriating the funds into the federal budget legislation. At that point, the money will go the Corps, which will coordinate with "appropriate representatives in the vicinity of Tulsa." This has got to happen by the end of 2012 or we'll lose whatever portion of the $50 million yet to be authorized.
My understanding is that the authorization was the hard part. Now it's "just" a matter of moving money through Congress and the Corps, which is where Rep. Sullivan and Sen. Inhofe come in.
Inhofe has already stated that he is for it and has been pushing for this for a long time. No problem getting his support.
So it's just a matter of making it happen on the Tulsa side. Let's build some dams.
Well apparently you still have to get it through congress. But what about the sentence at the end of the article...
"County commissioners will continue to look for funds to build the dams."
Which of the dams are funded with the 50mill if any? The dams in the river vote would have cost well over 50mill and there is still the shoreline hardening, habitat restoration, etc. to pay for. 50mill is a good start but we will still need more.
I am still hoping we get the larger Sand Springs dam as per the river vote so that there will be flowing water during the day, for more days of the year.
The last vote said $154M for the low water dams, shoreline modification, zink dam modification, and the channeling of the river south of the zink dam.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The last vote said $154M for the low water dams, shoreline modification, zink dam modification, and the channeling of the river south of the zink dam.
That amount also included "low water dam, lake and river studies".
More precisely, the portion allocated to the two new low water dams (Sand Spring and Jenks), their associated pedestrian bridges and lakes, AND "low water dam, lake and river studies" totaled $49.4 million
Why are you folks so adamant in destroying the river ? In fact, it is not barren most of the year.
Thousands of fish live there, from small minnows to giant spoonbill catfish. Foxes burrow in the banks. Eagles visit the shores. Birds of several species are dependant upon the ebb and flow. On the other hand, Zink Lake is barren. Why not embrace and enhance what the river is now? Why not clean it up now? You ever been down to the rip rap and seen the trash? That's the real disgrace. Despite the fact that it's pretty much a dumping ground now, at least is holds on to the vestiges of a natural setting. But dams will destroy even that. Hundreds of thousands of creatures will be killed. Something unique will be lost and it will never, ever exist again.
We can go back and argue all this again, but, suffice it to say the current river is in no way natural.
The flows are wildly too irregular and weak, there's the pollution of nearly a million people along the river in the Tulsa area, the too defined riverbanks, the lack of regular flooding.
That's just a start.
Swake, by that reasoning, ever sick person that walked into a hospital should have an amputation.
You imply it's OK to destroy what is left of the river because it is sick. Wouldn't it be much better to fix what is broken and save it?
Fact remains, dams will displace and destroy a diverse population of creatures and a unique system which cannot be replaced will be lost.
quote:
Originally posted by Lorax
Swake, by that reasoning, ever sick person that walked into a hospital should have an amputation.
You imply it's OK to destroy what is left of the river because it is sick. Wouldn't it be much better to fix what is broken and save it?
Fact remains, dams will displace and destroy a diverse population of creatures and a unique system which cannot be replaced will be lost.
Go do a little research on the living river concept and cascade dams and get back with us.
Ok?
Shhhhhh....
Got a nice thread going here.
don't. feed. the. you know what.
[8D]
Well, already did review those concepts last round on this topic.
And I cannot dispute that there are many benefits nor that such measures are not attractive. Conversely, the Arkansas already is a living river, so isn't that concept redundant?
And just like last time this topic was so hot, and has been discussed before, there are no guarantees such measures will take place. Nor is it proven these measures will preserve the unique nature of the system. I have read through the studies pointed to last time, too. In one word: Inconclusive.
Yet, and as shown, and as research confirms, BIO 101-- loss of habitat leads to loss of biodiversity. No matter what the counter measures, dams will lead to loss of habitat.
Something unique, which is home, and sometimes REQUIRED, for many diverse creatures will never exist again.
The Lorax speaks for the trees, not the river! Goofy poster. But seriously, if you visited this issue in the previous threads - why are you posting under a new name?
That said:
1) Why is the current man-made river paradigm better than the proposed modifications? Certainly you are not arguing the river is natural in it's current state.
2) Thousands of creatures will due, but won't thousands more get new homes? There will be some losers, but probably more winners that losers (no one wins if a person with the flu gets an amputation).
I can not argue that it is not a loss of habitat. But you can not argue that it is not habitat creation. Whose to say which is better, since it is already modified beyond any vestige of a natural state?
Arguing to keep the Arkansas natural is like arguing to keep Woodland Hills non-commercial.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080115_1_A9_spanc87803
quote:
Commission starts paperwork for dams
by: KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
1/15/2008 12:00 AM
The County Commission voted unanimously Monday to begin accepting requests for qualifications for engineering and design work for low-water dams in Sand Springs and Jenks and for modifications to Zink Dam in Tulsa.
Kirby Crowe of Program Management Group, which administers Vision 2025 programs for the county, said he expects to recommend a firm to the commission by April or May.
Firms that submit requests for qualifications are not re quired to include a fee for their services, Crowe said.
The fee will be negotiated once the firm is selected, he said.
The commissioners' action comes more than three months after county residents rejected a $282 million river-development proposal. The plan would have been funded by increasing the county sales tax 0.4 percent for seven years.
A group of local leaders has been meeting since the Oct. 9 vote to discuss river development options.
The commissioners voted in December to accept the group's recommendation to proceed with the $9.5 million in river projects approved by voters in the Vision 2025 package.
Crowe estimated that the design and engineering work could take 18 months to two years to complete.
The $23 billion federal Water Resources Development Act, which Congress passed in November, authorizes $50 million for Arkansas River development projects. That includes funds that could be used for ecosystem restoration, recreation and flood damage-reduction projects.
County commissioners will continue to look for funds to build the dams.
Is it not unusual to not ask firms to submit their fee before being selected?
In Oklahoma and various other states it is a violation of the rules for Registered Professional Engineers to submit fees as part of the basis for selection on projects.
This is a qualifications based selection process.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The Lorax speaks for the trees, not the river! Goofy poster. But seriously, if you visited this issue in the previous threads - why are you posting under a new name?
That said:
1) Why is the current man-made river paradigm better than the proposed modifications? Certainly you are not arguing the river is natural in it's current state.
2) Thousands of creatures will due, but won't thousands more get new homes? There will be some losers, but probably more winners that losers (no one wins if a person with the flu gets an amputation).
I can not argue that it is not a loss of habitat. But you can not argue that it is not habitat creation. Whose to say which is better, since it is already modified beyond any vestige of a natural state?
Arguing to keep the Arkansas natural is like arguing to keep Woodland Hills non-commercial.
I feel obligated to post since having expressed similar viewpoints in the past someone may think I am the Lorax.
Go easy on his views. They are being expressed all over the country. Just read yesterday where the Klamath river dams will probably be dismantled to put that river back to its natural (yet somewhat directed) state. The power generating company on the river is co-operating in the effort as long as ratepayers are not penalized. The two concepts of natural and controlled are not mutually exclusive. This river still has natural rhythms that the corps expressly desires that maintain wildlife and natural actions.
Building the two dams proposed does not mean that the living river concept below Zink will be done also. That rather changes my view. Their purposes seem hard to justify except for nearby retail center development. However, the city/county operates without my approval! If the corps signs off, the congress gives the money and the tree huggers can be assuaged, then any attention towards the river is good. But number one on any list should be cleaning up the 100 years of junk left there including dredging equipment, debris, abandoned pipe lines and making provision for keeping it clear of trash.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The Lorax speaks for the trees, not the river! Goofy poster. But seriously, if you visited this issue in the previous threads - why are you posting under a new name?
[:)] Mostly just read. Seldom post.
quote:
That said:
1) Why is the current man-made river paradigm better than the proposed modifications? Certainly you are not arguing the river is natural in it's current state.
In appearance, it resembles the Cimarron where it runs fairly unimpeded in Western Oklahoma. Additionally, based on the indicator species, the river is close to a natural state. A specialist who is up to date on classification would have to definitely answer as to what degree. I work in a differnt field now.
quote:
2) Thousands of creatures will due, but won't thousands more get new homes? There will be some losers, but probably more winners that losers (no one wins if a person with the flu gets an amputation).
I can not argue that it is not a loss of habitat. But you can not argue that it is not habitat creation. Whose to say which is better, since it is already modified beyond any vestige of a natural state?
Arguing to keep the Arkansas natural is like arguing to keep Woodland Hills non-commercial.
I'd argue that it is very close to natural. The imtermittant flow, while not natural is similar to what seasonal flows would be without Keystone. It's only the frequency that is different.
Hopefully, my concerns are unfounded. I hope I'm completely wrong.
Lorax,
So, as I understand your statment you consider the nearly seasonal flows extremes which happen on virtually a daily basis to be a normal healthy flow regime?
Vision 2025
I don't know what would be a healthy flow regime. Can only speak in the general sense that intermittent flows are natural and seasonal.
I have 2 years experience in environmental consulting and a degree in a related field. It was 26 years ago.
And, yes, I was suggesting that dam relases equate to natural cycles in some measure. And, yes, it is an overstatemnt because I have no proof in this specific case, only theory.
Regarding flow: It is not necessarily one factor, such a flow rates or such as frequency or volume, that defines a biota. There are many variables. Indicator species are given a very high weight. I believe there are proposed measures for minimal and seasonal flow in some of the COE reports that are mentioned specifically for preservation of species.
If there were no concerns about loss of habitat and loss of diversity along the whole system, then there would be no need for restorative and conservation practices (such as lowering gates, building islands). It's kind of like paving over a jungle to put up a zoo.
Until proven otherwise, it's still my thesis that the river as it exists, is close to a natural prairie river and that dams will destroy that nature. Another chunk will be removed from the few prairie river systems left in the US. My thesis is based on two things. 1. Its appearance and behavior and similarity in general to other systems. 2. The type of plants and animals which are dependant upon number 1 and types of and diversity of species, which are similar to other prairie rivers.
Hopefully, I am wrong. Maybe the details of the studies underway will show the river to nothing more than a ditch. The jury is still out. If the Phase III report ever come about and shows my statements to be empty that would be the best report of all.
quote:
Originally posted by Lorax
Until proven otherwise, it's still my thesis that the river as it exists, is close to a natural prairie river and that dams will destroy that nature.
Is the Arkansas river still considered a "no secondary contact" river?
Is the coliform count still too high to allow contact?
Have we remediated the mercury and lead levels yet? (are we still killing swans?)
Just curious before I go for a swim.
This is the USGS's opinion:
The Arkansas River is subject to many types of pollution downstream from the Oklahoma-Kansas State line, and its inferior quality along with an erratic flow pattern has caused it to be largely abandoned as a source of municipal and industrial water supply. In general, the river water increases in chemical concentration downstream from the Oklahoma-Kansas State line to Tulsa, due mainly to tributary inflow from the Salt Fork Arkansas River and the Cimarron River, both streams being sources of large amounts of both natural and artificial pollution. An increase in chemical concentration is noted due to tributary inflow from the Canadian River which is largely artificial pollution. A steady decrease in concentration is then noted as the river progresses through Arkansas to the Mississippi River, as all major tributaries below the Canadian River have a dilution effect upon the chemical concentration of the Arkansas River water.
Spoonbill,
Thanks for the info--thats interesting and very sad. No doubt, the Arkansas is very stressed.
Folk, thanks for the discussion.
In the Dr Suess book, the Lorax said his piece and left.
Think this Lorax will do the same and just go back to reading. Should be interesting to see what what evolves.
Kewl. Since nothing can live in it, lets dam er up and build stuff around it. [:D]
Here we go again. Spoon, if what you just rom the USGS "opinion" is true, and I think you made some big jumps in that interpretation as those remarks were part of a much larger opinion, then for heavens sake, WARN THE PEOPLE on KEYSTONE lake IMMEDIATELY and posse up the lawyers! There's money in them dang polluted rivers which make up most of what we call a lake. Of course most of the skiers, swimmers, fishermen, birds, turtles and fish would already be hopelessly poisoned and unavailable for witness. You could stand in for them i suppose. Irresponsible remarks. If you want downtown development fine, but don't trash the river anymore than it already is.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Here we go again. Spoon, if what you just rom the USGS "opinion" is true, and I think you made some big jumps in that interpretation as those remarks were part of a much larger opinion, then for heavens sake, WARN THE PEOPLE on KEYSTONE lake IMMEDIATELY and posse up the lawyers! There's money in them dang polluted rivers which make up most of what we call a lake. Of course most of the skiers, swimmers, fishermen, birds, turtles and fish would already be hopelessly poisoned and unavailable for witness. You could stand in for them i suppose. Irresponsible remarks. If you want downtown development fine, but don't trash the river anymore than it already is.
Hard to avoid. Keystone can still support mud hens! Talk to the good folks at the St. Johns & St. Francis ER about staff infections from contact with the Arkansas and Keystone.
It's not the chemical pollution that's the big problem. It's the fact that thousands of units of antibiotics make their way into the watershed, causing the existing staff and the added bacteria's to become resistant to treatment. The lead and mercury is ok, as long as we don't stir up Keystone too much. It'll just hang out on the bottom of the lake, until they open the dam full blast and give her a good flush.
Funny thing is that our enemy the Zebra Mussel is capable of filtering huge amounts of lead and mercury out of water and trapping it in a mostly inert form in it's shell. Funny how nature finds a way and we keep trying to stop it for "environmental" reasons.
Ok, I'll lay off now, I know you have your causes and agendas to pursue.