Dam removal and stream restoration - helping the environment repair itself

[Codger_64]

For several years now I have been involved in an environmental project the removal of a failed low head earthen dam and restoration of the stream. It is an odd position for me to be in considering that by and large I am in disagreement with much of the modern environmentalist's mindset, their propensity to overreach and interfere with individual property rights, industry etc. But now, on this project I find myself squarely in their camp. And not shy at all about using them as allies in this effort. Perhaps some of you will find this interesting.

I fell into this issue quite by accident. As many of you know I am a lifelong outdoorsman and canoeist. I have paddled most of the rivers and streams of my native Arkansas for many years. And love nothing more than the days spent in solitude on clear Ozark mountain streams. The abundance and variety of wildlife both streamside and under the water is nothing short of amazing to adults and especially to children with a mentor to teach them. How they all interact to make a specific stream environment work, each bivalve, each crustacean, each fish, mammal, bird and insect filling a niche and living in symbiosis.

A friend in the Arkansas Canoe Club, a thriving paddlesports club with many chapters, even one in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, approached me about an issue going on with a stream local to him, Little Sugar Creek. The issue being a failed dam and the fetid lagoon formed behind it called "Bella Vista Lake. The city politicians want to use Federal funds to replace the failed dam with a new one. And keep their efforts hush-hush. "The game is afoot", as Sherlock Holms once said. So my friend Greg and I have been digging. FOI requests, historical archives, City Council minutes and documents filed. A very tangled web. And the more we discovered, the more dismayed we became.

Now we have solicited the advice of professionals in the fields of stream ecology, hydrology and geology. We have also enlisted the aid of NGOs like the Ozark Society and American Rivers as well as the Arkansas Canoe Club, the state's chief steward of navigable water access and ecological health. It was with their aid that the state laws were changed from the archaic meaning of navigable waterways (commercial transport) to today's meaning, open to recreational kayaks, canoes and other paddlesports.

The experts, to a man, have backed our hypothesis that the best course of action is to remove the dam and restore the stream. That from every aspect to be considered, especially from the Federal funding application, replacement of the dam is not advisable.

We are in the end of the public input period for the FEMA application and I have sent my detailed letter to the regional office as have many more who have been following our restoration project. A landscape architect has submitted a draft drawing for conversion of the lagoon and small park into a premier recreation amenity. I'd like to invite those interested who have access, to visit our facebook page, Friends Of Little Sugar Creek. Give it a like if you are so inclined. We are not asking for money. Just some verbal support for our cause. The removal of the failed dam and restoration of the creek to it's original condition, a free flowing, clear, gravel bottomed Ozark stream where people can paddle their boats, and kids can wade and chase minnows and crawdads. FYI there is currently a city ordinance against swimming or wading in the water because of poor water quality. I'll post some of the history here in a bit.

https://www.facebook.com/friendsoflittlesugarcreek

 

[Codger_64]

My letter to the FEMA regional director regarding the draft environmental impact statement submitted by the engineering firm on behalf of the city as a part of the funding application process. It explains a lot of the issues involved with rebuilding the dam rather than restoring the creek.

alan.hermely@fema.dhs.gov

Mr. Hermely,

By now I am sure you have received quite a few letters and emails from citizens and experts regarding the proposed Bella Vista dam replacement project. I have poured over all available information on this project for quite a long time, more information than most of the public has seen, more than CP&Y revealed in their EA document filed with your office. It is my considered opinion that the project of replacing the dam is ill-advised, the EA is deficient and the request for funding should be rejected.

Prior to this project coming to my attention, I hadn’t read an environmental impact assessment in quite a few years, though I am sure you have. This one is in obvious error on many points. Incorrect information is given and important information is withheld. Perhaps this is common for such important documents these days, but I suspect not. It was certainly not last century when I was involved in civil engineering in Little Rock.
There were many details the engineering firm left out of this document which do not support the City’s case for dam replacement and in fact strongly contraindicate such construction efforts.

The dam is a relic of a failed resort development dating back to 1915 where the developer simply dumped whatever debris was at hand into the creek to form an impoundment, with little or no engineering work involved in either the dam or the associated amenities he built in the narrow flood plain. Small surprise the buildings were submerged in the first flood event. The resort development failed and was abandoned and only the leaking earthen dam remains. Ever since the early days, this lake and dam has been an albatross, a hot potato that has been tossed from owner to owner. And to date, the owners have done only un-engineered failure mode maintenance on the dam every time the dam is overtopped. The last few times, the repairs consisted of dumping loose fill and riprap into the collapsed and eroded face of the dam and running over it with a Bobcat skidsteer. This is documented in local media.

Various engineers who have inspected the dam since it last received an official inspection in the 1970’s have noted leakage in the dam face. This includes the city’s own engineer as well as outside experts and is included in reports presented to the Council, owners of the dam and impoundment. Such leakage indicates failure of the materials used in the basic construction, not a defect caused by a single overtopping event in 2011 as the application suggests. In fact it was noted to be a failed structure as far back as 2008. Additionally each report I have seen notes that the dam is in danger of catastrophic failure and has been for quite some years. This alone, in my opinion, negates the qualification for the 2011 flood event relief funding.

The underlying geology was grossly misrepresented as no doubt Dr. Brahana has informed you by now. This, to me, is an inexcusable omission by a certified engineering firm and even if there were no other misrepresentations or omissions, should be adequate cause for dismissal of the EA and rejection of the funding application. I need not explain to you the implications of karst and limestone substrate as I am certain the esteemed professor has explained it far better than I can.

The implications of the lake, dam, and dam replacement from an ecological point of view was embarrassingly glossed over in the EA. I have been unable to find documentation supporting the contention that the dam and associated features have no significant environmental impact on this otherwise free flowing Ozark stream. I see no specific biological survey upstream, in feeder creeks, in the lake itself or downstream of the dam. Again, a gross oversight in what was supposed to be an ecologic assessment for a major construction project on a sensitive stream likely home to many unique species of vertebrates and invertebrates. Regardless of the outcome of the dam replacement project (or more advisedly, its removal and stream restoration), I look forward to reading an indepth professional survey. I suspect that the biological diversity will amaze most.

It has been stated that the dam has recreational implications. However my own investigations show that this is not the case. City ordinance actually prohibits wading or swimming in the lake because of health hazards it presents to the public. Sedimentation in the lake is near capacity. It produced methane gas and excessive nitrogen as the leaf litter and other precipitants settle into thick layers. Not only does this greatly reduce oxygen content, but causes an annual algae bloom (actual species of algae have not been examined or stated to my knowledge). It assures an unhealthy level of turbidity in the layers above the sedimentation and below the surface bloom. None of this is conducive to direct human recreation in the water or, more especially, inhabitation and survival of critical species of stream dwelling plants and animals. I’ve seen no estimation of the sedimentation volume or examination by accurate sampling of the sediment contents. PCBs? Mercury? Lead? At this point, no one knows. Or if they do it has not been revealed to the public or to FEMA in the EA.

CP&Y stated in their EA that there were no other lakes in the area, yet a brief google search produced a list of 20 named lakes and impoundments in that one county. Not the least of which is Beaver Lake., an impoundment of the White River with 487 miles of shoreline and an area of 44 square miles. It is utilized by fishermen, recreational power boaters and personal watercraft (jet skis) as well as swimmers. Recreational amenities include resorts, cabins, picnic and day use facilities and eleven campgrounds offering nearly 700 campsites. Additionally, that dam serves not only to provide recreational opportunities and provide a means of flood control, but also produces hydropower. The powerplant operates two main 56 MW turbines in one house unit. Total power generation capacity is 6,347,345 MWHR. The Lake Bella Vista dam and its impoundment provide nothing of consequence to the public. Again, an obvious misrepresentation of facts.

Canoeists, kayakers and fishermen have expressed a great deal of interest in the prospect of stream restoration and the recreational possibilities that presents. They are among the NGOs supporting the alternatives to the dam, as well as state agencies. I dare say that funding for restoration will become available from many sources though not likely from FEMA. And at a far less cost than dam removal and replacement.

The dam does form a walkway on its top surface to connect walking trails. But that is not sufficient reason to replace the dam. It could be easily replaced by a footbridge over the restored steam at a fraction of the cost and with little or no impact on the stream itself. The small adjacent park would be enhanced by the proposed stream restoration, more than doubling the recreational opportunities for local residents and tourists. A draft park layout has been produced by a landscape architect to illustrate one possibility. It includes picnic facilities, a small instream whitewater feature utilizing the preexisting underlaying stream drops, and possible children’s playground amenities. A nature walk with interpretive signs about the local history, stream ecology and local native plants has been proposed and has the interest of several NGOs and State agencies including those entrusted with overseeing ecology and wildlife.

So as you can see, the premise that no alternative to dam replacement exists is false. It reflects only the wishes of the mayor, city council and a few residents who have not examined the facts. And the facts were seemingly purposely withheld from your agency in this fatally flawed draft EA. I hope that you and your agency will take all of this into consideration when deciding whether or not to approve a funding grant for the proposed project. Ongoing, I hope that there will be an opportunity for concerned citizens to have a voice in these issues. To date that has not been the case. The council has not invited public input much less facilitated a forum for public discussion. It is only through the efforts of concerned citizens that history, documentation and issues have been uncovered and that professional stream ecologists and geologists have been consulted.

With sincerity and respect,
Michael L. Little

 

[sodak]

Interesting! I am usually completely against activists and environmentalists, because I'm on the side of science. When they happen to mess up and actually do the right thing, all you can do is go for it. Good luck!

 

[Codger_64]

Thanks Sodak. The problem here is that no science or engineering took place when the dam was built in 1915 and no science or engineering is involved in the city's seeking a replacement dam. Thus we contacted the experts in their fields and had them look and advise.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VI
c/o Alan Hermely
800 North Loop 288, Denton, TX 76209
Email: Alan.Hermely@fema.dhs.gov

Dear Mr. Hermely:

This letter contains my comments about the Environmental Assessment submitted for the proposed restoration of the Lake Bella Vista dam in Bella Vista, Arkansas that is currently under consideration. I am a Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Arkansas in my 41st (and final) year here. My area of specialization is stream ecology. Bella Vista is about 40 miles north of the University so I am very familiar with it. I have read numerous Environmental Assessments (EAs) and a few Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) since the National Environmental Policy Act was finalized in 1970, the year I entered the University of North Texas as a PhD candidate in ecology.

Like many EAs this one is full of sweeping generalizations that are lacking in substance. For example, the statement that there are not many small reservoirs in the area is totally false. This mistake was either due to an oversight due to lack of study or a bias on the part of the writers, either one of which is unacceptable.

Any reasonable student of stream ecology knows that reservoirs seriously degrade the natural environment. They interrupt the river continuum (see River Continuum Concept online). Reservoirs alter the flow, depth, temperature, insolation (canopy cover and thus sunlight), and substrate particle size in the area impounded. These habitat alterations change the kinds and densities of plants, animals, and microbes that can reside there or pass through the area. Particles (like leaves) and organisms that would normally drift downstream are no longer able to do so, changing the area down stream. The thermally altered water also affects the reach below the dam. Ozark streams seldom have problems with excessive algal growth. The water flows enough that the algae that are not attached do not have time to complete their life histories and reproduce. The algae that are attached (periphyton) that are normally in streams are kept in check by invertebrate and vertebrate grazers like snails, insects, and some species of fish like stonerollers. When the water is slowed by an artificial structure like the Lake Bella Vista dam, the algae proliferate. This is exacerbated by the increased light, temperature and nutrients in the reservoir and further by the decreased number of grazers in the altered habitat. Some of the blue green algae (actually cyanobacteria) that grow excessively in our small reservoirs become extremely toxic during hot dry summer months. They are especially toxic to livestock and pets that drink the water. Dr. Duane Vance that taught phycology at UNT (formerly NTSU) taught me all about this in my first semester. This was the subject of his dissertation and it still receives a great deal of attention by researchers, and the general public during episodes. Reservoirs of this size definitely have negative environmental characteristics, and few, if any, of these were seriously considered by composers of the EA. It seems that they may simply want the lucrative job of removing and rebuilding the dam.

In the 20th century construction of reservoirs of all sizes from small farm ponds to huge flood control/hydroelectric dams was welcomed by most people. Only a few were opposed for environmental reasons and recognition that the cost/benefit ratio was becoming too high. One of these was the dam proposed for the Buffalo National River not far from here that, thankfully, was never built. In the 21st century the trend has changed and dam removal is generally more popular than dam construction, especially by professional ecologists. It has become recognized that most “river miles” exist as small headwater streams like Little Sugar Creek, and that the water quality of our larger rivers is in large part the result of the condition of these tributaries. Since publication of the River Continuum Concept paper in 1980 and the numerous research papers that followed, it has been fully recognized that streams and rivers cannot be understood properly by studying isolated segments of them, like the segment degraded by Lake Bella Vista. The impacts of a small reservoir like this are far reaching and should not be glossed over as an insignificant environmental perturbation.

As stated in the EA, restoration of the dam will require draining the reservoir and complete removal of the existing structure. In my opinion this action should stop at that point, or involve some follow up restoration of the stream instead of the reservoir. This would be a very positive environmental impact as opposed to continuing a negative impact on this watershed ecosystem. If this action cannot be taken at this point, perhaps a full EIS composed by a firm without any conflict of interest should be required before proceeding with this project.

Thank you for considering my comments on the EA and the environmental significance of this proposed dam restoration. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any clarification of my comments or further discussion.

Sincerely,

Arthur V. Brown, Ph. D.
Professor, Biological Sciences
Mail Stop 1, SCEN 601
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701

So as you can see, the science is on our side.

 

[Codger_64]

Above was the biology science. Now the hydrogeology science.

Mr. Alan Hermely
Environmental Specialist
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region VI
600 North Loop 288
Denton, Texas 76209

Dear Mr. Hermely:

I am writing in response to the general call for citizen’s comments regarding the Draft Environmental Assessment-City of Bentonville Improvements to Lake Bella Vista Dam; FEMA-1975-DR-AR/PW1562; Benton County, Arkansas. I have grave concerns regarding the proposed action of investing public funds in rebuilding the Lake Bella Vista dam on Little Sugar Creek in Bella Vista, Arkansas, and I strongly recommend that this dam be removed rather than rebuilt. I base my concern on the current observed leakage through the existing dam, the karst geology of the St. Joe Limestone and the Cotter Dolomite which underlie the dam and much of the Bella Vista area, the well-developed and integrated groundwater drainageways underlying the study area, and most importantly, karst areas underlying the contiguous areas that contribute much of the flow that passes through Lake Bella Vista.
As a matter of introduction, my name is John Van Brahana. I was employed for 28-years with the U.S. Geological Survey (in the midcontinent region of the United States as an Hydrologist), and 23-years as a Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. I retired from the USGS in September of 1999, and from the University in May 2013; I still actively conduct research for both. I earned my Ph.D. in Hydrogeology at the University of Missouri, Columbia, in 1973. Since graduate school, I have collaborated closely with members of the state and federal agencies and nearby academic institutions striving to help address vulnerability of karst lands and water-quality issues in the karst terrane of the Ozarks. This work included supervision of numerous student theses and research projects dealing with karst science, and consulting, conducting, and publishing peer-reviewed research papers nationally and internationally on topics relevant to karst. Dr. Tom Sauer (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service) and I developed the Savoy Experimental Watershed (SEW) on Division of Agriculture property contiguous to the Illinois River in northwest Arkansas in the mid-1990s, and since that time this facility has been the center of an intensive infrastructure of long-term karst water-related studies. I am a Professional Geologist (P.G.) registered with the American Institute of Professional Geologists-number 2275, and with the State of Arkansas-Board of Registration for Professional Geologists-number 1884.
My major objections to the Draft Environmental Assessment lie with 1) omissions and the superficial level of treatment of the karst hydrology and structural geology of the area, which have a major control of the interaction of surface and groundwater (Winter et al., 1998) in this well-documented karst area, and thus have an 2) unknown impact on water quality of both surface and groundwater, and on the well-being of the organisms utilizing these environments and related ecosystems. It is my strong opinion that comments regarding karst hydrogeology and water quality in the Draft Environmental Plan are misrepresentative, and 3) too brief for a meaningful discussion of impacts on endangered species that live within this karst ecosystem; impacts in the Draft Environmental Assessment are significantly understated, and are likely misrepresented.

 

[Codger_64]

1) Specifically, Lake Bella Vista dam site is very close to a major basement fracture, the Bella Vista fault, a structure which cuts the overlying, younger sedimentary rocks from the igneous-rock basement up to land surface, a thickness of several thousand feet. The Bella Vista fault is documented on the geologic map of Arkansas (Haley et al., 1993); it is an ancient feature underlain by preexisting basement faults in the igneous rocks that were reactivated and moved during the oblique closure of the North American and South American plates during the Ouachita orogeny, roughly 300 million years ago (Ma). The Bella Vista fault cuts across Little Sugar Creek less than 1000 feet upstream of Lake Bella Vista, a distance that lies well within the zone of influence of groundwater in this karst setting. Karst hydrogeology studies describe the system of conduits which allow groundwater and organisms to move readily through the subsurface, and the degree of development and adequate characterization require a thorough study of the entire groundwater basin, not just the area of the lake. This assessment of the full natural boundaries of the lake was a task that was omitted in the Draft Environmental Plan.

2) Lake Bella Vista is a nutrient-rich lake which becomes overgrown with algae during the warm summer months, thereby impacting lake water quality with diurnal spikes of low dissolved oxygen, resulting in eutrophication. Little Sugar Creek and Lake Bella Vista are the regional hydrologic drain for most of the year, and as such, receive runoff and groundwater-derived baseflow from the surrounding uplands. Leakage from numerous septic systems provides a significant amount of effluents, estimated to be about 50 times greater than the seven other lakes in Bella Vista based on lake size, depth, and holding capacity (Darrell Bowman, Biologist and Stream Ecologist for the Property Owners Association of Bella Vista, personal communication, 2015). My concern is that impaired water quality from Lake Bella Vista may be recharged into the aquifer during times of high flow and flooding. The influx of fertilizers and effluents that are transported into this lake facilitate degradation of surface-water quality, a condition which is not anticipated to change, even if the dam is replaced. Under high flow, water movement is reversed as surface water from the lake recharges the groundwater though the same high-permeability karst conduits that facilitate flow from groundwater to surface water for most of the year. These features are called estavelles, and they are common in Ozark karst (Tennyson et al., 2008). In my opinion, removing the dam will allow the Little Sugar Creek to return to its natural state, sediment behind the dam will be naturally eroded and transported downstream, and the degraded water quality of existing Lake Bella Vista will be replaced with more oxygenated water from upstream.

3) Intimately related to the framework of subsurface karst conduits and open flowzones, two types of endangered subterranean obligates have been documented in the nearby area. A subterranean obligate is defined as an organism that is “restricted to an aquatic environment and that has a suite of convergent features such as loss of pigment and vision, and adaptive characteristics such as reduced metabolism or increased antennae length” (Graening et al., 2012). These two species are federally-listed organisms known from springs, wells, and caves within several miles of Lake Bella Vista, the endangered species of Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae, and Ozark crayfish, Cambarus aculabrum. They are dismissed by the Draft Environmental Assessment as not being impacted because there are no caves underlying Lake Bella Vista. However, the source of baseflow to Little Sugar Creek is derived from groundwater contributions from uplands; numerous caves, sinkholes, losing streams, and springs nearby are very well documented and are part of the dynamic flow regime of Little Sugar Creek. Occurrence of either or both Amblyopsis rosae and/or Cambarus aculabrum have been established along the Bella Vista fault at Bear Hollow Cave, ~5 miles northeast of Lake Bella Vista; at Dillow Spring, ~2 miles northeast of Lake Bella Vista; at Civil War Cave,~ 4 miles southwest of Lake Bella Vista; at the Centerton Fish Hatchery, ~6 miles southwest of Lake Bella Vista; and at Logan Cave, ~18 miles southwest of Lake Bella Vista (various sources, including Dr. Art Brown, University of Arkansas; Dr. Jim Johnson, University of Arkansas and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, emeritus; Mike Slay, The Nature Conservancy; Tom Aley, Ozark Underground Laboratory; and Jonathan Gillip, U.S. Geological Survey). The Bella Vista fault, with its related group of fractures and cracks that cut the soluble limestone bedrock offer numerous potential pathways for interaction between Lake Bella Vista and regional groundwater, as well as for the endangered species within. Protection of endangered species is a critical element of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and it is my feeling that this Draft Environmental Assessment has not addressed these questions adequately, particularly with respect to the karst.




Respectfully submitted,

John Van Brahana, Professor Emeritus
Department of Geosciences
University of Arkansas

And that is the science behind our effort to remove the dam and restore the creek.

 

[gadgetgeek]

Rock on man. The way I see it, at the end of the day, reality has to be our guiding factor, and the fact that science tends to point in that direction just makes it a good guide. Glad you have several perspectives backing your plan, and I hope it works!

There's always room for more good streams.

 

[Codger_64]

It is working. We do need all the public support we can get though. As the city is intending to use federal funds to augment state and local funding for this 3.6 million dollar boondoggle, every U.S. citizen reading this has a dog in the fight. And the right to give their opinions to FEMA on this disaster funding request.

There are a lot of odd quirks that have come to light. First, and very striking to me, the City of Bentonville is the former home of the late Dr. Neil Compton (1912-1999). Dr. Compton was a conservationist and the driving force in the effort to save the Buffalo River from being dammed by the Corps Of Engineers in the early 1970's. His efforts resulted in the declaration of the Buffalo River as our first National River, free flowing from it's headwaters to it's confluence with the White River. I was involved as a supporter while in High School and college. Today it is a National Park attracting millions of visitors from around the world. In his efforts, Dr. Compton founded the Ozark Society which continues today and which supports our efforts. Though not yet in an active way.

Bentonville is also the home of the Wal-Mart Corporation. And thus the Walton family and the benevolent Walton Foundation. Records show that they have given funding to the Bentonville/Bella Vista Trailblazers for development of walking and hiking trails in the area. That 501-C3 organization is a previous owner of the lake and dam, having deeded it to the city for $10 some years back. This is the deed that the city and thus the engineering firm's EA claims has restrictions saying that the lake and dam must remain in perpetuity and cannot be removed. An examination by Greg and myself revealed no such restriction. We had our attorney look at the deed as well. To put it politely, she found no such deed restrictions either. The game is afoot indeed.

 

[sodak]

Very interesting! I hope you keep us updated, I'm curious to see how this plays out.

 

[druid189]

Have you tried to solicit an official opinion from the Army Corps of Engineers? I mean....yeah true....they designed the [failed] storm surge levy system that Katrina took out in New Orleans - but it's one more avenue to prove your cause.

 

[Codger_64]

Have you tried to solicit an official opinion from the Army Corps of Engineers? I mean....yeah true....they designed the [failed] storm surge levy system that Katrina took out in New Orleans - but it's one more avenue to prove your cause.

The dam has received countless inspections since the last official one in the 1970's and every engineer including the city's own has warned of catastrophic failure. It is currently leaking through the face in no less than three places. (it is even listed as a failed dam by the American Association of Dam Engineers). So it's condition is not in question.

It has to be removed purposely with an engineered plan or allowed to blow out with all that entails, including flushing one hundred years of silt, sediment and debris downstream destroying the stream ecology there for the foreseeable future. It was recently inspected by our experts (the aforementioned professors) as well as a State team from the Department Of Natural Resources and they concur, the dam is a failed structure. The only thing in question is whether it is more wise to build another low head dam or restore the stream. Either way the old structure and sediment has to be removed.

Today is the last day of the 30 day comment period for the FEMA grant application EA. I hope any of you here who have any interest in stream ecology will send them an email to register your thoughts on the topic.

 

[22-rimfire]

The interaction of biology (primarily human waste related organisms) and the karst environment trouble me. I think getting rid of the damn is the easy solution as the impoundment provides essentially an unlimited "point source" for infitration into the subsurface. I think work should be done to determine the nature of the stream (loosing or gaining), it's biology, and the relationships with groundwater.

 

[Woods Walker]

This is a good thing. Dams do a bunch of ecological damage which isn't apparent to most people.

 

[Codger_64]

The interaction of biology (primarily human waste related organisms) and the karst environment trouble me. I think getting rid of the damn is the easy solution as the impoundment provides essentially an unlimited "point source" for infitration into the subsurface. I think work should be done to determine the nature of the stream (loosing or gaining), it's biology, and the relationships with groundwater.

This is a good thing. Dams do a bunch of ecological damage which isn't apparent to most people.

Excellent points. And issues which were pointedly ignored by the Texas engineering firm hired by the city to write the EA submitted to FEMA. Did I mention they were paid nearly a quarter million dollars to write it?

We are in the process of prompting both State and Federal agencies to do a followup of the professors' assesmants, on site inspections and surveys in the three zones, above, in and below the lake. However with the revealing of the karst substrate alone, the original estimate of 3.6 million dollars for the entire project is blown out of the water. And they will be forced to do an honest EA utilizing real data now that their ersatz EA has been exposed. Will they get "do-overs"? I don't know.

 

[kvaughn]

I was involved in a similar effort to demo an old un-used concrete low head industrial dam on the Housatonic River in New Milford Ct about 20 yrs ago. The purpose was to reduce the risk from chronic upstream seasonal flooding and return to natural flow of the river for fish migration. The Army C. of E. shot that project down because concern for the release of possibly contaminated silt behind the dam. That dam still takes a canoer/kayaker every couple of yrs and the flooding occurs most springs.--KV

 

[Shotgun]

Interesting! I am usually completely against activists and environmentalists, because I'm on the side of science. When they happen to mess up and actually do the right thing, all you can do is go for it. Good luck!

Yeah. They're all hippy dumbasses that know nothing about science.

Bwahaha!!! Good one.

 

[Zemapeli]

Interesting. Wish you all the best. :thumbup:

 

[Codger_64]

Yeah. They're all hippy dumbasses that know nothing about science.

Bwahaha!!! Good one.

A few are. But the problem compounds when there are political interests involved that coattail genuine issues. Many don't really understand the science, but many don't care if it stands in the way of their political or financial interests. Thus we brought in accredited science experts to advise us and the city and FEMA. Logic and science over emotion and personal interests as it were. For example we suspect several endangered species are involved but we aren't sure yet. And won't be sure until a real scientific study is done.

Interesting. Wish you all the best. :thumbup:

Thank you Zemapeli. Even if we manage to quash the city's quest for Federal funding for a new dam, the battle will not be over by a long shot. By the way, here is the draft proposal done for us by the landscape architect for the new park and stream restoration.

 

[c.t.smith]

I did a short 2 year diploma on land and water reclamation. Although i didn't read through all your info I wish you luck on your project and return this system to a healthy ecosystem while restoring the water quality so animals and people alike can enjoy.

The world is a better place because of people like yourself

C Smith

 

[Shotgun]

But the problem compounds when there are political interests involved that coattail genuine issues. Many don't really understand the science, but many don't care if it stands in the way of their political or financial interests.

This is THE issue when it comes to anything environmental. Neither side is innocent which is why I don't understand the divisive speech and openly mock it.

I think what you're doing is cool. Thumb ups!:thumbup::thumbup: